Category Archives: Of Interest

Oh, Wait, No One Died from Hydroxychloroquine!!! (Someone Lied)

Posted on by
Those Published “17,000 Hydroxychloroquine Deaths” Never Happened

Those Published “17,000 Hydroxychloroquine Deaths” Never Happened

BY    SEPTEMBER 19, 2024   , ,    7 MINUTE READ

Early January of 2024, Americans learned about the publication of an article from Elsevier’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy overseen by Dr. Danyelle Townsend, a professor at the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy’s Department of Drug Discovery and Biomedical Sciences. As Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Townsend reviewed, approved, and published the article titled: “Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: An estimate.”

The article was always a hypothesized estimate of people that might have died, but now even that estimate has been retracted. The reason for the retraction was that the Belgian dataset that was one of the bases for the piece was found to be “unreliable” (but in reality was fraudulent). The article also repeatedly referenced the New England Journal of Medicine’s 2020 RECOVERY trial. The RECOVERY trial is well known to be a deeply flawed study which, in addition to implementing late treatment in severely ill Covid patients, used extremely high doses of HCQ.

The now retracted publication authors were all French or Canadian, with the primary author a pharmacist by the name of Alexiane Pradelle. According to a rudimentary internet search, Dr. Pradelle had never published before. Subsequently, listed authors were degreed as physicians, pharmacists, and/or professors of their respective disciplines. The main, corresponding author, Jean-Christophe Lega, runs the Evaluation and Modeling of Therapeutic Effects team at the University of Lyon.

Hydroxychloroquine’s Fabled Safety History Contrasts Data

In addition to being a hypothesized estimate, the article also attacked the legendary safety of HCQ, contradicting centuries of the safety of quinolines as a class.

HCQ, chloroquine and quinine are structurally and pharmaceutically/mechanistically related, sharing the same quinoline structural group. The original iteration of quinine was a very fortunate discovery that dates back to the 1600s (at least) as a medicinal tipple used by Jesuit missionaries in South America. It is naturally found in the bark of the Cinchona tree (also called a “Quina-Quina” tree).

Quinine is still available today both as a prescription drug, for similar indications as HCQ including malaria…and as a Covid-19 treatment.

Quinine is so safe that it may be unique in that the FDA simultaneously permits its use without a prescription, as an ingredient in tonic waters.

Schweppes tonic water “Contains Quinine” as all tonic waters do. Winston Churchill once declared, “The gin and tonic has saved more Englishmen’s lives and minds than all the doctors in the Empire.”

HCQ is similarly safe when used appropriately and under medical supervision.

The CDC describes HCQ as “a relatively well tolerated medicine” and that “HCQ can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers” referring to its long-term use in chronic diseases.

Basic logic dictates that, if a drug is safe for long-term use, it would also be safe for short-term use, including (and especially) in Covid-19 early treatment/pre-exposure prophylaxis type indications.

These are pharmacology fundamentals that ought to be known by any pharmacist or physician – let alone to a professor serving as a Journal Editor-in-Chief at a taxpayer-funded state College of Pharmacy. 

Did not even one person on her editorial board of over 50 “peer-reviewers” and staff ponder the celebrated and storied history of HCQ (and its predecessors) and how incongruent this study’s findings were before choosing to publish data denigrating HCQ safety?

The correct answer to that might actually be: “no”…

The publishing editorial board all seem to be laboratory bench (non-clinical) research scientists, per their biographies. Although the board does promote itself as meeting DEI requirements of being “gender diverse,” a more important question might be is if they have the appropriate credentials and experience to review and opine on clinically complex drug safety/epidemiology subject matters in the first place.

Is just anyone now allowed to opine on specialty clinical pharmacology drug safety matters?

In certain journals/news publications, the answer to that question seems to be: “yes”…

Those “17,000 Deaths” Never Occurred

Another point of confusion surrounded the interpretation and promotion of this little-known publication by the lay press.

To be exact: there were never “17,000 deaths;” it was always a hypothetical extrapolation of people that could have died, based on “unreliable” (eg, actually, fraudulent) databases on top of the previously mentioned, problematic late-stage RECOVERY-trial-type dosing and timing.

Still, Josh Cohen, a Forbes.com PhD senior healthcare columnist, used this publication to headline an absurdly biased op-ed against HCQ, stating that Trump’s HCQ proposal was “Linked To 17,000 Deaths.” Forbes’ Tufts, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania- trained “healthcare analyst” misrepresented or appeared to not understand the now-retracted study methodology or projections.

It went downhill from there. Mere hours following the publication, very similar, now objectively inaccurate, highly politicized, and seemingly coordinated attacks on HCQ and Trump were published by: The Hill, Politico, Frontline News, Scripps News, the Guardian, KFF Health News, News Nation, Newsweek, AOL.com, Yahoo News, and Daily Kos, in addition to a multitude of prominent regional, international, and US federal news outlets, many falsely estimating that 17,000 deaths had already taken place and that the (imaginary) victims’ blood was already on Donald Trump’s hands.

As of September 15, 2024, the above and other articles still show up very prominently (on the first page) of a Google search for “hydroxychloroquine deaths”…which never happened.

Here are some screenshots of headlines referencing non-existent deaths based on a now-retracted study:

Journal Editors Were Immediately Warned about Questionable Findings

Almost immediately following the January 2, 2024 publication, its critical flaws including basic miscalculations among many other deficiencies were brought to the attention of Dr. Townsend by Xavier Azalbert and non-profit BonSens.org attorneys starting on Jan 7, 2024. In fact, a total of 9 communications were sent by the above individuals, but none of them were ever shared as “Letters to The Editor” by Dr. Townsend in good faith to inform readers of specific potential shortcomings, as is otherwise commonly done.

Dr. Townsend seemed to forget that bad medical data and publications can do actual patient harm, and kept legitimate and important study criticisms to herself. Instead of taking responsibility and making a leadership decision, she passed the buck to a Committee on Publication Ethics, delaying the needed retraction.

It appallingly took 234 days (~7 months, from the January 2nd publication to August 26th) for Dr. Townsend’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy to finally retract the “unreliable” article. But at that point, untold millions around the world had already been (and continue to be) polluted with outrageously incorrect information about non-existent HCQ deaths.

This raises some questions about Dr. Townsend’s duties and responsibilities as the Editor in Chief:

  • What efforts were made to correct incorrect headlines and articles published by the lay press, incorrectly frightening patients, pharmacists, and physicians, by fueling false tropes about HCQ?
  • What efforts were made to let news organizations know that data from the peer-reviewed publication was under question? (She refers to “a number of Letters to the Editor and correspondence from readers.”)
  • What immediate efforts are being made to notify news organizations and/or amplify search engine results regarding the now-retracted publication?
  • What funding source/individual paid the $3,490 (“excluding taxes and fees”) publication fee? (Note: reputable academic journals do not charge to publish articles.)
  • Does Elsevier’s Journal of Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy meet certain definitions of what is known as a predatory publisher?
  • Was this Editorial Board qualified to review regulatory/drug safety/epidemiology/any other clinical subjects?
  • Are the ramifications of this Journal’s publication and its subsequent retraction known to the University of South Carolina administration, co-faculty, and whichever body adjudicates its faculty Code of Ethics & Standards of Practice?
  • This isn’t the first time Townsend has needed to retract articles – a normally very rare occurrence for reputable journals. Will Elsevier, which publishes over 2,700 journals, permit further opining or publishing on clinical subjects by this editorial board? Can the Editor-in-Chief and/or editorial board be trusted to recuse themselves from opining on any topics that are not within their area of expertise?
  • What should be done to prevent a reoccurrence of this incident at the University of South Carolina and other taxpayer-funded institutions?

Beyond that, what ramifications/punishments (if any) will occur for other prominent Covid-19 Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine authors/publishers whose articles were also retracted after they were found to be based on so-called “unreliable” (eg, non-existent) databases?

Ethical scientists who believe in truth, transparency, and academic accountability are standing by, waiting for medical and academic justice.

Unethical scientists are also watching this situation unfold, twisting their mustaches, learning about what they could potentially one day get away with.

DISCLAIMER: This article is not medical advice. Do NOT start or discontinue ANY drug without first discussing it with a pharmacist or physician you know and trust. 

from:    https://brownstone.org/articles/those-published-17000-hydroxychloroquine-deaths-never-happened/

WHo Owns YOUR Land?

Posted on by

Learn about Environmental Services and how the concept of monetizing ephemeral assets will be used to take your land

Then watch Margaret Byfield’s amazing talk contextualizing this process from our symposium last week

MERYL NASS

Here is Margaret Byfield’s talk: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/attack-on-food-and-farmers-and-how-to-fight-back/margaret-byfield-assault-on-land-and-liberty/

Here is where the article below appears, on the American Stewards for Liberty website: https://americanstewards.us/usda-is-monetizing-natural-processes-under-the-sustains-act/

And right below the video there is a button for a timed transcript.

………………………….

The USDA is preparing policy to implement the Sustains Act, determining who will own “environmental services,” which include the air we breathe, photosynthesis, pollination, and the health benefits of open space.

This step is critical for proponents of the United Nations’ sustainable development agenda to achieve, as it will provide the path to transfer America’s real assets from private citizens to federal and international interests. The earlier attempt to accomplish this was stopped when the Natural Asset Company scam was soundly defeated in January.

Nevertheless, the Biden-Harris Administration is preparing to determine ownership of natural processes on private lands as it implements the Sustains Act authorized through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. They are dragging America into a dangerous black hole that will have devastating consequences on our economy, and on individual property rights.

There is a reason “natural processes” have never been considered property before. The way in which the monetary value of these natural assets must be derived is purely subjective. These are not true property rights which can be held by someone to the exclusion of another with the value determined by consumers. The value of natural processes will be set administratively, which can be changed depending on the social agenda of who is in the White House.

Some have argued that “environmental services” are a legitimate commodity that should be available for trade through the free market system. However, these arguments fail to acknowledge that the potential market for “environmental services” was created solely by blackmailing producers to comply with a social agenda, for the purpose of implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development targets.

They are not a “free market” product. The only reason we have “carbon credits,” or “carbon sequestration” is because those now holding the political power, and those seizing the opportunity to get rich off the scam, are using this power to impose their social agenda on industry and the rest of us.

Environmental services are the antithesis of a free market system. Just because they are taking advantage of our free markets to continue the scam does not make them any less blackmail.

Getting back to basic principles, neither our nation nor our financial markets were to be driven by social agendas dictating how Americans would live. This is precisely what our founders fought against. Nevertheless, this is the long game behind monetizing natural processes.

What is the Sustains Act?

The Sustains Act provides a way for private entities to contribute funds to help implement conservation programs on private land. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers the program and the Secretary is given sole discretion as to how the program will be carried out. August 16th of this year, the USDA issued a “request for information,” published in the Federal Register and asked that public comments be submitted within 30 days, by September 16th.

This “request for information” is not a formal rule-making process where citizens can later challenge the final policy through the Administrative Procedures Act. Instead the “request for information” invites people to submit comments, which the USDA may or may not take into account, and serves to allow the Department to claim they involved the public in the development of policy implementing the act.

This is what administrations do when they want to implement a social agenda without accountability to the people.

Who Will Own The Environmental Services?

The new law sets out how the Secretary is to determine ownership of the environmental services that are created on private land through the federal conservation programs.  The contributing entity, the one who contributes private funding to the conservation programs, is to “prescribe the terms of ownership” of the environmental services, subject to the approval of the Secretary.

Notice, determining the value and ownership of these natural processes produced from private lands requires only the involvement of the Secretary and the private contributing entity — not the landowner.

In the section titled “Role of Contributing Entity,” the law states:

“An entity contributing funds under this subsection may –” (5)(D) “with respect to an activity funded pursuant to this subsection that may result in environmental services benefits to be sold through an environmental services market, subject to the approval of the Secretary, prescribe the terms for ownership of the entity’s share of such environmental services benefits resulting from such activity;”

The decision of who owns the environmental services does not include the producer or landowner.

Under the section titled “Producer Participation,” the law directs the following:

(6)(A) “Notification – The Secretary shall establish a process to provide notice to producers — (i) of activities that may be carried out through a covered program, pursuant to this section; and (ii) any terms prescribed by the contributing entity under paragraph (5)(D) with respect to such activities.”

Even though the section is labeled “producer participation,” there is no producer participation prescribed in determining who will own the environmental services derived from the private land. What is directed is that notice be provided to the producer of the decision the Secretary and the contributing entity have made for how the environmental services will be allocated on their property.

The next section titled “Retention of Environmental Service Benefits,” raises more questions than it answers:

(6)(B) “The Secretary shall not claim or impede any action of a producer with respect to the environmental services benefits they accrue through activities funded pursuant to this subsection.”

After the Secretary and contributing entity have determined how much of the environmental services the contributing entity owns, presumably based on their financial commitment contributed to the program, then the landowner can assert what he believes he has accrued through his activities, and the Secretary cannot claim or impede this assertion.

What is left unaddressed is what portion will the Federal government own? This section refers to the producers’ claim of ownership of the environmental services, and prevents the government from impeding this. Logically, the portion the Federal government owns has already been decided when the Secretary and contributing entities earlier determined ownership of the natural processes.

So the division of who owns the natural processes on private lands that are enrolled in these federal conservation programs will be determined by the contributing private entity and the Secretary, after which the landowner / producer may assert his claim.

What is also unclear is whether the addition of private funds can be added to a program retroactively, in other words, after the landowner has already enrolled in the program. There is nothing in the Sustains law that specifies this new authority only applies to new enrollments.  What if a contributing entity wants to contribute funds to a covered program on property already enrolled?

The conservation programs subject to the Sustains Act include:

  • Environmental Quality Incentives Program
  • Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
  • Regional Conservation Partnership Program
  • Emergency Watersheds Protection Program
  • Healthy Forests Reserve Program
  • Watersheds Protection and Flood Prevention Act programs (excluding the Watershed Rehabilitation Program)

Advancing the Biden-Harris Natural Asset Strategy

In January of 2023, the White House finalized the “National Strategy to Develop Statistics for Environmental – Economic Decisions (SEED)”.  This creates a new line-item on the Federal Balance Sheet that will record the value of real assets such as land and water, as well as natural processes such as air and environmental services.  These values will be derived from all lands in the U.S. regardless of who actually owns the land, be it federal, state, local or private.

The Strategy is a part of the larger 30×30 agenda, which is the international plan to permanently protect 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030. Just as with the 30×30 initiative, there is no Congressional or Constitutional authorization for this National Strategy.  It is being directed solely from the White House.

The 30×30 land grab increases the protected lands in America, reducing those lands owned by private citizens and increasing the federal control over private lands largely through conservation programs and easements. The value of the protected lands can be transferred to others by creating a new asset, “environmental services” through “Natural Capital Accounts,” and the defeated “Natural Asset Companies,” or NACs.

Just as with the attempt to create NACs on the New York Stock Exchange, this strategy will monetize elements that should never be considered property. If the Federal government can claim ownership of these processes or even regulatory powers, they can control people’s use of these processes through devices such as carbon credits, biodiversity credits, water quality credits, and taxes.

Another dangerous element of this Strategy is that it places the value of all land on the Federal Balance Sheet, including private property, for the first time in the history of the United States.  This includes the value of every American’s residential lot and home.  In so doing, every American’s property will be considered a U.S. Asset that adds to the nation’s financial position in the world economy. In simplistic terms, it becomes collateral for the growing national debt.

In April of 2024, the White House released the results of four pilot natural asset accounts that explain how they will derive the value of these assets for Federal accounting purposes.  These four test accounts cover the elements of Land, Water, Air and Environmental Services, and they reveal several concerning actions. These are:

  1. Under the land pilot test account, they clearly state that private property will be included as a Federal asset.

The press release states:

“ … Private land in the contiguous 48 states was valued at $32 trillion, equivalent to roughly 30% of the net wealth already measured in U.S. Accounts. Accounting for natural assets like land on our nation’s balance sheet is critical; omitting them would dramatically understate U.S. wealth.”

The linked document cited further reinforces their intent:

“Our results underscore the potential importance of private land as a quantitatively significant asset on our national balance sheet…”

  1. Under the Environmental Services pilot test account, they make clear that not only will the value of the real property be included on the federal balance sheet, but also the natural processes derived from these lands where the federal government has funded projects such as the conservation programs.

This is where the “Sustains Act” becomes one of the implementing components of this strategy, because it will create a monetary value for these natural processes derived from the conservation programs, the ownership of which is being determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

From the White House Strategy:

“When the government spends a dollar to restore a coral reef or a forest that will attract tourism, supply water, or clean the air, our current system does not capture the economic value of this investment. The National Strategy gives us a path to change that.” (Introduction, page iv)

From the press release we learn more about what will be tracked in this account:

“Progress is ahead of schedule for developing natural capital accounts such as forests, pollination, urban ecosystems, and natural hazards. In addition, U.S. researchers are working with their European counterparts to understand lessons learned for implementing natural capital accounts in different countries.”

  1. All of these test pilot accounts rely on the UN Accounting System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) in order to derive the value of these assets.  Because Environmental Services and the value of natural processes is a subjective value, they need to rely on this esoteric system that does not conform to U.S. Accounting standards, just as they were attempting to do with NACs.
  2. A key purpose for the Strategy is to track our progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, something which neither Congress, nor the people have approved..  Once this system is in place, it gives the Federal government the data and means to control how Americans use their property and whether citizens can be governed to have a “net zero” impact on climate change.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Even though citizens comments can be ignored by the Secretary as it prepares how it will implement the Sustains Act, it is valuable to make your position known so that if the next administration is not in on the caper, they can use public outcry against this action as a basis to stop the monetization of natural processes.

Here are three points we recommend you make in your comments.

  1. Natural processes should not be monetized, owned by one entity to the exclusion of another, through environmental services markets.
  2. Whatever benefits are created as a result of the conservation programs remain owned in full by the landowner of that property.
  3. The addition of private capital being used to fund federal conservation programs cannot occur retroactively on lands already enrolled.

You can submit your comments here.

We also have an opportunity in the coming months to call on Congress to rescind the Sustains Act through the budget reconciliation process.  It is not too soon to ask your Representative and Senators and ask that they do so.

from:    https://merylnass.substack.com/p/learn-about-environmental-services?publication_id=746368&post_id=148886372&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Rep. Massie tells it Like It Is

Posted on by

Another Season Of Shutdown Theater Is Upon Us, And Republicans Are Already Cucking Out
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, SEP 12, 2024 – 07:20 AM

Another season of shutdown malarkey is upon us – this time with a deadline of October 1st before it’s time to fling poo.

Republicans want to tie a six-month funding stopgap (Continuing Resolution or CR) to the SAVE Act – which would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) yanked a funding bill off the House floor hours before an expected vote after a growing number of Republicans vowed to tank the measure which includes the SAVE Act.

Democrats want a “clean” funding bill that would keep the government open until December, right after the elections, without (of course) the SAVE Act.

Donald Trump wants Johnson and the Republicans to grow a pair of balls and let the government shut down if they can’t preserve the SAVE Act.

On Tuesday, before he yanked the funding bill off the floor, Johnson told reporters “We are going to put the SAVE Act and the CR together, and we’re going to move that through the process. And I am resolved to that; we’re not looking at any other alternative. … I think almost 90% of the American people believe in that principle and that’s why we’re going to stand and fight,” adding “You know how I operate: You do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may.” Hilarious.

After he pulled the bill, Johnson said: “We’re in the consensus-building business here in Congress with small majorities,” adding “We’re having thoughtful conversations, family conversations, within the Republican conference, and I believe we’ll get there.”

Of course, going head-to-head with Democrats (and some Republicans) over the SAVE Act means litigating claims of election fraud, which Republicans folded like a wet napkin over after the 2020 US election instead of circling the wagons around Trump.

Meanwhile, at least seven Republicans have said they would vote against a CR, period, as it only kicks the can down the road.

Johnson is dealing with a tough math problem. Because of their minuscule majority, House Republicans can only afford four GOP defections if all lawmakers vote. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was hospitalized Tuesday night after collapsing at an event. And at least seven other Republicans have publicly stated they will vote against a stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution or “CR.” Many others said they could join them.

Two sources told NBC News that leadership was anticipating as many as 15 GOP no votes if the vote had been held Wednesday. -NBC

Republicans opposing a CR include Reps. Cory Mills of Florida, Jim Banks of Indiana, Matt Rosendale of Montana, Andy Biggs of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee.

“I’ve continuously voted against CRs. I think it is terrible legislating,” said Burchett. “And the No. 1 threat to this country is fiscal irresponsibility. We are going off a fiscal cliff, and I think that every time we do this, we just kick that can further down the road.”

According to Mills, a military veteran and fiscal conservative who serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee, “This CR would weaken our defense capabilities and the readiness of our military, just as global threats are rapidly evolving. It would prevent us from responding effectively to adversarial nations like China, hinder innovation, and delay modernization,” adding “Six months is a long time in politics, but it’s an eternity in geopolitics, where quick responses are critical to countering foreign adversaries threatening to harm U.S. interests.

Mills is a ‘yes’ on the SAVE Act, saying: “I’m a firm NO on bankrupting the nation and a YES on election integrity.”

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) explains the charade we’re about to see unfold over the next two weeks:

from:    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/another-season-shutdown-theater-upon-us-and-republicans-are-already-cucking-out

Woke for What?

Posted on by

Communism: Woke/DEI/ESG Connection

TOPICS:

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024

By Neenah Payne

Explosive Documentary: The War on Children explains that Yuri Bezmenov (1939-1993) was a KGB informant who defected to the US  in the 1970s. Bezmenov warned:

The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy until such time that the perception of reality of your enemy is screwed up to such an extent that he does not perceive you as an enemy. You can take your enemy without a single shot being fired.

Bezmenov explained: “Leftists are useful idiots who serve only to destabilize society.” In an interview with G. Edward Griffin in 1984, Bezmenov exposed how the Communism overtakes a country.  He said that under the Communist conspiracy, the US was in a state of undeclared war against the principles on which it was founded. “Unless the United States wakes up! The time bomb is ticking every second and the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect” he emphasized.

Four Steps of Communist Takeover

Bezmenov explained that the Communist takeover of a country is done in four steps:

1. Demoralization (10-20 years)
2. Destabilization (2-5 years)
3. Crisis (6 weeks)
4. Normalization

The War on Children: Communist Takeover

Explosive Documentary: The War on Children shows that Roger Starbuck is a former Hollywood music video producer and director. His 2/2/24 documentary The War on Children had 50 million views in the first month — one of the most watched documentaries of all time. See the trailer. Elon Musk posted the documentary for free on X, writing that it was “worth watching, especially for parents.”

Starbuck explained that America is in the Normalization phase of a Communist takeover now. He told Tucker  Carlson:

[The sexualization of kids] is a near planetary scale psychological operation to usher in a new form of communism. And I know to some people that might sound extreme, but to give a little bit of insight, my family came from Cuba, where communism happened in a flash. And I don’t think a lot of Americans realize just how quickly this can happen. And we’re well down the path.

Woke Is Marxism

The articles and videos below explain that Woke is Marxism. Most Americans have not connected those dots yet. However, people from Communist countries have been warning us that a Cultural Revolution is taking place in America and the rest of the West – just as took place in China under Mao Zedong. It’s vital  for more Americans and other Westerners to connect the dots now.

Wokeism Is Marxism, DEI And ESG Are Stakeholder Capitalism (Op-Ed)
By Danielle Goodrich [Tri-Cities Area Director of Tennessee Stands]

What We’re Dealing with Here Is a Cult – Dr. James Lindsay 1/8/24

Race Marxism: The Truth About Critical Race Theory and Praxis

The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids 

European Parliament: Woke Is A Cultural War

Dr. Lindsay points out in his address to the European Parliament below, “Woke is Maoism with American characteristics” – drawing on the statement by Mao Zedong who said that his philosophy was “Marxism is Leninism with Chinese characteristics”. Dr. Lindsay says, “This is a pivotal moment in the history of the Western world.”

Woke, a Cultural War Against Europe by J. Lindsay and F. Furedi 4/3/23

Conference organized in the European Parliament by the Identity and Democracy Foundation.

Woke Is a Cult

What We’re Dealing with Here Is a Cult – Dr. James Lindsay 1/8/24

Dr James Lindsay is an author, mathematician, and political commentator. He has written eight books spanning a range of subjects including education, postmodern theory, and critical race theory. Dr Lindsay is the Founder of New Discourses, an organization dedicated to shining the light of objective truth in subjective darkness.

Dr Lindsay is the co-author of “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody” and is the author of “Race Marxism,” as well as his newest book, “The Marxification of Education.” Dr Lindsay has been a featured guest on Fox News, Glenn Beck, Joe Rogan, and NPR, and he has spoken at the Oxford Union and the EU Parliament.

Kamala Harris: We Must Be Woke

“We have to stay woke. Like everybody needs to be woke.” Kamala Harris’ vision for America, ladies and gentlemen. (video)

How Communism Is Ruling Our World

How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World (video)

The Epoch Times is serializing an adaptation from the Chinese of a new book, How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World, by the editorial team of the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party

Audio Recordings Chapters 1-12

Chapter Seven, Part I: The Destruction of the Family (UPDATED)

Table of Contents
Introduction

  1. Communism’s Aim to Abolish the Traditional Family
  2. Communism’s Promotion of Promiscuity
  3. Early Attempts at Sexual Liberation Under Communism
  4. How Communism Destroys Families in the West
  5. Promoting Sexual Liberation

The family is the building block of human society, allowing people not only to raise children in a stable and nurturing environment, but also to pass the knowledge of one generation to the next. Marriage is a sacred institution arranged by the divine for humanity to form families, preserving traditional heritage and morality.

Today, the traditional family is being slowly destroyed. The writings of Karl Marx and other communists describe the family as a form of private ownership to be abolished. In addition to persecuting religion and spiritual faith, communist regimes place love for the Communist Party above love for even one’s own parents, spouse, or children, encouraging people to struggle against their own kin….

Chapter Seven, Part II: The Destruction of the Family (UPDATED)
Chapter Eight, Part I: How Communism Sows Chaos in Politics (UPDATED)
Chapter Eight, Part II: How Communism Sows Chaos in Politics (UPDATED)
Chapter Nine, Part I: The Communist Economic Trap (UPDATED)
Chapter Nine, Part II: The Communist Economic Trap (UPDATED)
Chapter Ten: Corrupting the Legal System (UPDATED)
Chapter Eleven: Desecrating the Arts (UPDATED)
Chapter Twelve, Part I: Sabotaging Education (UPDATED)
Chapter Twelve, Part II: Sabotaging Education (UPDATED)

For More Information

Explosive Documentary: What Is A Woman?
Woke: Chinese Communist Attack on America
Parent Revolution: Rescuing Kids From Radicals

Neenah Payne writes for Activist Post

from:    https://www.activistpost.com/2024/09/communism-woke-dei-esg-connection.html

The Travellers are Travelling – Something BIG in the Air

Posted on by

Hi,

Well it seems that there is something big brewing, and at this time the word from the Travellers is that it is requiring a lot of spiritual, etc. assistance, and because of that, they are unable to give individual advice at this time.

It seems that the target date is somewhere in the latter part of September – I am thinking the 25th, but I cannot verify that date.  It is merely a hunch.

I am not sure at what point they will be able to come back, but I will certainly let you know.

Blessing to all.

More Attacks on Free Speech Platforms

Posted on by

Rumble CEO Leaves Europe after Telegram CEO Arrest

by Raw Egg Nationalist | Infowars.comAugust 26th 2024, 12:34 AM

“France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov,” said Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski

Rumble CEO Leaves Europe after Telegram CEO ArrestImage Credit: NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty Images

Rumble’s CEO, Chris Pavlovski, announced on Sunday that he has left Europe following the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov.

In a post on Twitter, Pavlovski said that France had “crossed a red line” with the arrest.

“I’m a little late to this, but for good reason — I’ve just safely departed from Europe,” Pavlovski Tweeted.

“France has threatened Rumble, and now they have crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.

“Rumble will not stand for this behavior and will use every legal means available to fight for freedom of expression, a universal human right. We are currently fighting in the courts of France, and we hope for Pavel Durov’s immediate release.”

Pavlovski used a subsequent Tweet to highlight the censorship of Rumble around the world.

“Free speech is under major assault and I will not stop fighting for it.”

Pavel Durov was arrested in Paris on Saturday, on charges related to the spread of illicit material via Telegram. He was arrested after arriving at Le Bourget Airport on a private plane from Azerbaijan.

In a statement on Telegram on Sunday, the company said, “Telegram abides by EU laws,” adding, “Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide.”

Analyst Mike Benz believes the US State Department is ultimately behind the arrest, because it wants to control Telegram.

“What they [the State Department] want to do is not kill Telegram like they wanted to kill Wikileaks,” Benz said in a video posted to Twitter.

“They want to control it. And the problem was, they didn’t have the ability to put sufficient pressure on Pavel to break his will. So he was living in Dubai. Now they have leverage. I believe that’s the purpose of this prosecution: not to establish a legal precedent that for every encrypted chat app its founder is personally responsible for all illegal conversations or transactions on the platform, but rather to force Telegram to become WhatsApp.”

Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov “miscalculated” by thinking he could be a “brilliant ‘man of the world’ who lives wonderfully without a motherland.”

“For all our common enemies now, he is Russian—and therefore unpredictable and dangerous.”

“Durov should finally realise that one cannot choose one’s fatherland,” Medvedev added.

from:    https://www.infowars.com/posts/rumble-ceo-leaves-europe-after-telegram-ceo-arrest/

The Dangers of Central Bank Digital Currency

Posted on by

Excellent 40 minutes of Catherine Austin Fitts on CBDCs (which may be rolling out next in New Zealand, after a failed launch in Nigeria last year)

They try things out in one setting, then another, till they get it right

MERYL NASS
AUG 12, 2024

In this installment of our series ‘Our Digital Future’, Alistair Harding speaks to financial guru Catherine Austin Fitts about the unified ledger, programmability, and the possibility of central bank control over how we spend our money.

https://realitycheck.radio/replay/our-digital-future-catherine-austin-fitts-cbdcs-on-the-unified-ledger-programmability-and-the-possibility-of-central-bank-control-over-how-we-spend-our-money/

And about that failed launch in Nigeria.

Why Did CBDC Fail in Nigeria? Valuable Lessons for Developing Countries

By Tuhu Nugraha

October 22, 2023

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/10/22/why-did-cbdc-fail-in-nigeria-valuable-lessons-for-developing-countries/

In the rapidly digitizing era, many nations are eyeing Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as the future solution for payment systems. However, Nigeria’s case illustrates that transitioning to CBDC isn’t a straightforward path, especially for developing countries.

Based on an analysis by Nicholas Anthony on Coindesk, the Nigerian government attempted to propel a transition to a cashless economy by implementing a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). Yet, the imposed cash usage restrictions led to public protests demanding the restoration of paper money. Despite the government’s efforts to boost CBDC adoption, such as removing access restrictions and offering payment discounts, these initiatives proved fruitless.

Moreover, with cash withdrawal limits and currency redesigns, the situation worsened, triggering a cash shortage and escalating public dissatisfaction. Consequently, CBDC adoption in Nigeria remains abysmally low, with less than 0.5% of the population using it, while over 50% have embraced cryptocurrency. What can we learn from Nigeria’s CBDC failure?…

What!!!

Posted on by

Democrat Raskin Says Congress will Stop Trump From Taking Office Even if He’s Chosen by the Voters and Create “Civil War Conditions” (VIDEO)

By  

Democrat Rep. Jamie Raskin earlier this year said Congress will stop Trump on January 6, 2025 and create “civil war conditions.”

The February 2024 video of Raskin was making the rounds on Monday.

Raskin said Congress will use the insurrection clause to stop Trump from taking office even if he wins the 2024 election.

“What can be put into the Constitution can slip away from you very quickly and the greatest example going on right before our very eyes is section three of the 14th Amendment which they’re just disappearing with a magic wand as if it doesn’t exist even though it could not be clearer what it’s stating,” Raskin said earlier this year at author Rick Hasen’s book talk and reading at Politics and Prose book store in Washington, D.C.

Raskin then said Congress will stop Trump on January 6, 2025 and issued a thinly veiled threat to US Supreme Court Justices.

“And then they want to kick it to Congress so it’s going to be up to us on January 6, 2025 to tell the rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified and we need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions all because the nine justices – not all of them but these justices who have not many cases to look at every year, not that much work to do – a huge staff, great protection, simply do not want to do their job and interpret what the great 14th Amendment means,” Raskin said.

WATCH:

 

Additional footage of Raskin’s remarks:

from:    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/democrat-raskin-says-congress-will-stop-trump-january/

Taking A Look At The Craziness

Posted on by

Debunking the False Political Hopium Paradigm with Indie Media Veterans

TOPICS:

AUGUST 7, 2024

By Derrick Broze

On August 4, 2024, veterans of indie media with combined experience totaling nearly 80 years came together to discuss the ramping up of political propaganda surrounding Donald Trump and the U.S. Presidential (s)election.

They discuss the importance of understanding the divide and conquer tactics, 5th Generation Warfare, and the “Mainstream Alternative Media”.

The group also discusses some ideas for real solutions outside of the political puppet show.

Featuring:

Source: The Conscious Resistance Network

from:  https://www.activistpost.com/2024/08/debunking-the-false-political-hopium-paradigm-with-indie-media-veterans.html

Covid — Where Are You?

Posted on by

Ex-Pfizer VP Blows Whistle: ‘No Evidence’ Covid ‘Actually Exists’

Frank Bergman

Pfizer’s former vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory, Dr. Michael Yeadon, has blown the whistle to warn that there is “no evidence” that COVID-19 “actually exists.”

Yeadon joined a growing number of top scientists who are speaking out to assert there is no sufficient evidence that either the COVID-19 virus or any other virus exists.

As a result, there was never any evidence to support a pandemic during the Covid era.

Despite this, Yeadon says the Covid pandemic led to the killing of many with “a monstrous, long-planned attack on helpless civilians by coordinated, lethal, central planning.”

“Face it. The evidence is that our governments hate us and want us dead,” the retired executive said in a statement.

Yeadon spent over 30 years working for the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

He rose to the most senior research position in his field at Pfizer before resigning in 2011.

Yeadon left Pfizer to start his own biotech company, Ziarco, which he later sold to Novartis in 2017.

The British scientist is well-known for his acute criticism of the COVID-19 “supranational operation.”

Since the pandemic, he has been speaking out to warn the public that Covid mRNA injections are intended to “maim and kill deliberately.”

In a 2022 interview, Yeadon shared that as a result of conversations with fellow scientists.

The scientists came to the conclusion that virology itself was based on the unestablished premise that “viruses” actually exist.

And after significant personal research he eventually “realized over time” he could “no longer maintain” his “understanding of respiratory viruses.”

After obtaining further information, this “collapsed the possibility that respiratory viruses, as described, exist at all. They don’t,” he concluded.

In recent decades, some medical scientists have pointed out that “no particle has ever been sequenced, characterized, studied with valid controlled experiments and shown to fit the definition of a virus.”

Therefore, virology “has consistently failed to fulfill its own requirements to prove” viruses even exist.

Furthermore, Canadian researcher Christine Massey has made Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to hundreds of scientific institutions in 40 different countries.

The requests are “asking for any records of anyone in the world ever finding this alleged (SARS-CoV-2) virus in the bodily fluid or tissue or excrement of any people anywhere on earth by anyone ever.”

“To date, we have responses from 216 different institutions in 40 different countries,” she said.

“And so far, no one has been able to provide us with even one record.”

“They can’t cite any record,” she notes.

“So they have all admitted that they don’t have a sample of the alleged virus and they don’t even know of anyone else who ever did obtain a sample of this alleged virus.”

Massey and her colleagues followed up to make similar FOIA requests seeking “any record of any alleged virus that supposedly infects humans being purified from a sick person.

“And they admitted that they didn’t have any whatsoever.”

Yeadon was asked by world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough to respond to a statement defending the dominant view that viruses have been demonstrated to exist.

He provided an extended reply seeking to offer readers further challenging arguments to consider for themselves.

In proposing one point in his reasoning, McCullough said:

“For those who are kind of denying the presence of the (COVID-19) virus, I think we’re approaching 300,000 peer-reviewed papers on the topic.

“I mean, this is a mountain of evidence to dismiss out of hand.”

Yeadon replied, proposing:

My initial concerns are mainly with the attempt to pretend that lots of papers asserting the same unproven thing bolsters the unproven claim. It simply doesn’t.

Back in the day when people thought the earth was stationary and the sun orbited earth, had there then been ‘peer reviewed papers’, all the reviewers would pass papers on earth centric systems.

The numbers don’t make it correct.

Merely that once group think sets in, almost everyone will interpret evidence in that light.

This continues until unequivocal evidence emerges to counter the errors of thinking.

Yeadon, a doctoral expert in respiratory pharmacology and a specialist in toxicology, argues that the Covid pandemic was a crime against humanity that should be viewed as an attack.

However, he warns that “the perpetrators are going to do it again.”

from:    https://slaynews.com/news/ex-pfizer-vp-blows-whistle-no-evidence-covid-actually-exists/