Enemy of the State-Read the Book-Know the Man
This is not a Safe Space but Baby, I don't care.
"I am not a number, I am a Free Man" - No. 6
Information Liberation Alex Jones’ Prison Planet Gary North Specific Answers Antiwar The Daily Bell Tenth Amendment Center Economics Policy Journal The American Thinker The New American Lew Rockwell
Posted by M. C. on February 28, 2021
Have you heard about the newest national emergency?
No, not the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent national emergency was declared just two weeks ago—when President Joe Biden granted himself emergency powers to freeze the property and assets of individuals and businesses connected to Myanmar’s military, following an attempted coup in the southeast Asian country.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Myanmar, National Emergencies, Rand Paul, Ron Wyden | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
Biden’s appointee and who David Stockman descrbes as a simpleton.
Digital global tax. Does this mean some global entity can just deduct from digital accounts without your say so?
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told her G20 colleagues Friday that Washington is dropping a push for a controversial provision in a global digital tax, opening the door to a likely agreement.
The US shift — part of a broader repositioning by President Joe Biden from the “America First” agenda of former President Donald Trump — prompted immediate praise from Germany and France, which said a deal was now “within reach” following the US pivot.
Yellen announced at the G20 finance ministers meeting that US officials “will engage robustly” in the talks and “is no longer advocating for ‘safe harbor’ implementation of Pillar 1,” a Treasury official told AFP.
The Trump administration had insisted on a so-called safe harbor clause in the OECD tax that effectively would have allowed big tech companies to comply voluntarily, blocking progress on a deal.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has been working on a multilateral agreement that would include a global minimum corporate tax rate on tech giants.
The aim is to find a common solution to address the policy dilemma of how to tax profits earned in one country by a company headquartered in another that offers more favorable tax treatment.
European officials said the US shift was an important breakthrough.
“This is a giant step forward on our path towards an agreement among the participating states by the summer,” German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said in a statement following virtual talks with his G20 counterparts.
French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said a deal should be reached by summer, calling for negotiations to be “concluded without delay.”
France in 2019 approved a tax on tech firms like Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google, which were accused of moving their profits offshore.
Paris suspended collection of the digital services tax through the end of 2020 amid the OECD talks.
But the measure had drawn sharp criticism from the Trump administration, which had planned to enact tariffs on French goods, but called off the levies in early January before leaving Washington.
Yellen had signaled the likely US shift during her January Senate confirmation hearing, saying she supported efforts to ensure corporations pay their “fair share” and to remove incentives for companies to offshore activities.
In November, some 75 major tech players, including Google and Facebook, backed a French initiative committing them to making a “fair tax contribution” in countries where they operate.
Without an accord, companies face the risk of a proliferation of national laws that could have led to double taxation.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: G20, global digital tax, Janet yellen | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
CHINO, CA—Local man Brad Zwygart says he no longer can form opinions of his own, as he always waits to see what major corporate brands have to say on any given issue before he decides what he believes.
Zwygart says he holds off on all thought-forming activity when first encountered with an issue. His first stop? Social media, so he can see what all the billion-dollar corporations believe, since they’re clearly moral authorities on all major issues.
“I’m not sure what to believe about the trans movement. Let’s see what Oreo has to say,” he said yesterday as he pulled out his smartphone. “Oh, lookie here — trans people exist. Perfect!” He then checked other corporate brand accounts out to find out what he should believe about gun control, BLM, the minimum wage, and the Equality Act.
“Perfect. So much great corporate knowledge on here. Thanks, corporate brands!”
The man then put his phone away and took a sip of coffee, smiling as he looked out the window, content in the knowledge that he believed exactly what all the major U.S. corporations believe on everything.
At publishing time, Zwygart had begun refreshing Arby’s Twitter feed to see what they had to say about the bombing of Syria.
Bee seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Babylon Bee, Corporate Brands | 1 Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
But since then, government agencies have devised a new surveillance method: instead of getting warrants to force companies to provide data, they simply purchase the information from brokers. Call it entrepreneurial innovation in the market for tyranny.
by Ken Silva
When the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that law enforcement agencies need warrants before they can request geolocation data from cell phone companies, civil liberties advocates touted the judgment as a major win for privacy.
But since then, government agencies have devised a new surveillance method: instead of getting warrants to force companies to provide data, they simply purchase the information from brokers. Call it entrepreneurial innovation in the market for tyranny.
The scope of this activity has been slowly revealed over the last year, beginning with a February 2020 Wall Street Journal article, which reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has “bought access to a commercial database that maps the movements of millions of cellphones in American and is using it for immigration and border enforcement.” Later reports revealed that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) purchase similar data.
Had the world not essentially collapsed about a month later, this might have been big news. Alas, government’s data purchases have gone largely unpublicized in the midst of pandemics, riots, elections, and so on.
Even though geolocation data purchases are a norm in government, there are some public officials who agree with civil libertarians that the programs are unconstitutional. For example, in a memo made public this week, the inspector general for the Department of Treasury criticized the IRS for purchasing location information.
According to the IG’s memo, the IRS subscribed to a geolocation database provided by the data broker Venntel. The inspector general shared his view that the IRS program likely violated the Fourth Amendment and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Carpenter v. US.
However, the IG’s opinion is far from government consensus. In fact, the IG’s memo notes that the IRS shuttered its geolocation tracking program not because of concerns about its constitutionality, but only because it wasn’t useful—a similar fate to what happened with the NSA’s bulk metadata collection.
Other departments have also expressed the opinion that bulk data purchases are constitutional. The Defense Intelligence Agency said in a memo made public last month that it can buy bulk data because the Supreme Court’s Carpenter decision only applies to law enforcement—and not to intelligence agencies.
“The court did not consider ‘collection techniques involving…national security,’” the memo said. “By extension, the court did not address the process, if any, associated with commercial acquisition of bulk commercial geolocation data for foreign intelligence/counter-intelligence purposes.”
Nor does the Biden Administration seem interested in checking the geolocation tracking programs. When new National Intelligence Director Avril Haines was asked about the programs during her confirmation process, she played lip service to the importance that “American people have an understanding of when, and under what authorities, the government is buying their private data”—but she said nothing about curtailing such surveillance.
If it’s indeed important for Americans to know how they’re being tracked, then it’s unclear why the DSH, CBP and ICE are still contesting a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union to produce records about their geolocation tracking programs. Again, this ACLU lawsuit isn’t even challenging the tracking programs— it’s only trying to wrangle records from them—and yet government is insistent on pursuing litigation that could last years.
By the time the Supreme Court would make any rulings on the geolocation tracking programs, it could be nearing the end of the decade, and government agencies will almost certainly have found another workaround by then.
“If law enforcement agencies can buy their way around the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the landmark protection announced by the Supreme Court in Carpenter will be in peril,” the ACLU said when announcing its lawsuit in December.
Unfortunately, it’s apparent that the Carpenter decision has long passed the point of peril, taking the entire Fourth Amendment with it.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: ACLU, DHS, ICE, IRS, Venntel, warrants | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
And there you have it, Biden’s pick for chief Labor economist, confused about the basics of how minimum wage laws cause damage.
https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2021/02/bidens-chief-economist-at-department-of.html
Joe Biden has appointed 36-year-old Janelle Jones as the Department of Labor’s chief economist.
Bloomberg reports:
For more than a decade in government and research organizations, Jones has focused on finding out why Black people were falling behind in the labor market. She coined the phrase “Black Women Best” to drive home the idea that if policies are crafted to help this historically disadvantaged group, they would help all workers.
“When I see that it’ll take four to five years for the economy to return to full employment, what I’m thinking is that it’ll take Black workers 10 or 12 years,” Jones said. “My role here will be to think about those sorts of things, to give a lens to union workers, low-wage workers, different types of workers who aren’t usually centered.”
But her writing appears to chiefly focused on reporting on new data studies on the differences between black unemployment and white unemployment.
There are these, for example:
Again, these are all collections of data without any discussion of what causes high unemployment among blacks. There is never a mention, for example, of the high minimum wage as a factor which makes it difficult for black teenagers to get that all important first job.
Bizarrely, one of her few writings which go beyond data collection reports is an essay supporting increased minimum wages—which causes higher black unemployment!:
At the beginning of 2018, 18 states will increase their minimum wage, providing about $5 billion in additional wages to 4.5 million workers across the country. In a majority of these states, minimum wage increases (ranging from $0.35 in Michigan to $1.00 in Maine) are the result of legislation or ballot measures approved by voters in recent years. Eight of these states (Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Dakota) will have smaller automatic increases that adjust the minimum wage to keep pace with price growth. This automatic inflation adjustment preserves the buying power of the minimum wage, which has steadily eroded over time.
And there you have it, Biden’s pick for chief Labor economist, confused about the basics of how minimum wage laws cause damage.
As Thomas Sowell put it:
The minimum wage law is very cleverly misnamed. The real minimum wage is zero – and that is what many inexperienced and low-skilled people receive as a result of legislation that makes it illegal to pay them what they are currently worth to an employer.
Most economists have long recognized that minimum wage laws increase unemployment among the least skilled, least experienced, and minority workers. With a little experience, these workers are likely to be worth more. But they cannot move up the ladder if they can’t get on the ladder.
For a full discussion of how the minimum wage hurts everyone, including those who receive the nominal pay wage, see: Understanding the Numerous Problems With Minimum Wage Laws.
–RW
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Department of Labor, Janelle Jones, Joe Biden, minimum wage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
Parton’s critics, who are really just critics of the gig economy and capitalism generally, are wrong on the facts from the get-go. The premise of their argument is that the workers depicted have to work side-hustles to pay their bills and make ends meet. But that’s not actually what the ad depicts. Rather, it shows workers who are disillusioned and bored with their day jobs so they chase their true dreams after-hours.
Everybody loves Dolly Parton. It’s not hard to see why: The country music star is a philanthropic giant with decades of charitable work, including a recent $1 million donation to fund the hugely successful Moderna COVID vaccine.
And Parton’s big personality and widespread popularity have never made her egotistical; if anything, her recent decision to decline a statue being made of her at the Tennessee state Capitol offers a masterclass in humility and grace.
But in an unusual twist, some people are pretty upset with Parton right now. Why?
Well, Parton worked with the website provider Squarespace to produce a commercial, which aired during the Super Bowl. The advertisement updates her classic song “9 to 5” to “5 to 9,” depicting several bored office workers stuck at their day jobs who then, using Squarespace to make their websites, work after-hours to launch freelance independent businesses. One woman starts offering dance fitness lessons, a man markets his paintings, and more, as the various individuals are able to turn their gigs or “side hustles” into fulfilling, full-time work.
“Working 5 to 9, you’ve got passion and a vision,” Parton sings. “Cuz it’s hustlin’ time, whole new way to make a livin.’”
“Gonna change your life, do something that gives it meaning,” she continues. “With a website that is worthy of your dreaming.”
Sounds positive and uplifting, right? Not everyone thought so.
Several prominent left-leaning critics of the gig economy, while acknowledging their general affection for Parton, savaged her commercial and the message it sent.
Writing for Newsweek, socialist writer and journalist David Sirota decried the advert’s message as “dystopian,” “propaganda,” and reflective of an “insane ideology.” He asks: “Why do we tolerate—or even celebrate—the idea that a second or third job and a 12-hour day is necessary just to subsist?”
Others piled on.
“Parton’s silvery voice is being used to promote the false virtues of working overtime, when so many gig economy workers are barely scraping by and the tech companies who employ — but misclassify — them are raking in boffo profits,” Kim Kelly wrote in an Op-Ed for NBC News. “The gig economy is a wretched alternative to a stable paycheck and proper benefits, and efforts to paint it as a matter of ‘independence’ or ‘being one’s own boss’ downplay how hard it is for so many gig workers to make ends meet.”
“It’s not ‘fun’ or ‘empowering’ to juggle multiple jobs; it’s an indictment of a system in which people aren’t paid fairly and workers are squeezed down to the last drop of energy,” Kelly concluded.
Parton’s critics, who are really just critics of the gig economy and capitalism generally, are wrong on the facts from the get-go. The premise of their argument is that the workers depicted have to work side-hustles to pay their bills and make ends meet. But that’s not actually what the ad depicts. Rather, it shows workers who are disillusioned and bored with their day jobs so they chase their true dreams after-hours.
Secondly, the critics ignore that most people aren’t forced to work in the gig economy—whether it’s driving for Uber, delivering groceries for InstaCart, or what have you—but rather they choose to do so because they value the flexibility the work provides.
“More than 70% of 1099-M gig workers say they are working independently by their own choice, not because they can’t find a 9-to-5 job,” Forbes reports.
The reality is, independent work can provide personal fulfillment and a good income, whether it be part-time or full-time.
According to a 2019 survey, a whopping 40 percent of gig economy workers earn more than $100,000 annually, while another 35.7 percent make from $50,000 to $100,000. That seems a far cry from a “wretched alternative to a stable paycheck and proper benefits.” And of course, being your own boss, choosing which projects to accept, and having a flexible schedule are pretty darn attractive perks.
Fundamentally, working in the gig economy is a voluntary decision that many Americans engage in after weighing the costs-and-benefits compared to typical 9-5 work.
“[Freelancers] are willing to give up some of the security of standard employment (predictable income, health insurance, retirement benefits) in exchange for independence,” Dan Sanchez, Laura Williams, and Jen Maffessanti explained for FEE.org.
Critics who oppose the gig economy and seek to restrict it under the law would take people’s choices and options (and paychecks) away in the name of “helping” them.
Those upset about Parton’s commercial misunderstand it. The ad is not at all about necessity or “non-passion” subsistence overtime work. The country music star and American hero’s real message is about opportunity and entrepreneurship, and the virtues that come from expanding the opportunity to pursue entrepreneurship to more people.
In a free-market capitalist system, which we still have to some extent here in America, anyone—not just the wealthy—can start a business or trade and pursue their dreams.
As the ad depicted, even average disillusioned office workers have access to starting their own businesses and escaping the drudgery of traditional 9-5s that don’t suit them. In a free market, you don’t need powerful political connections to get approval to start a business like you would in a socialist system, or enormous resources to lobby and climb regulatory hurdles you need in a highly-regulated, government-distorted market system.
In fact, the digital age has made starting a business more accessible for average Americans than ever before. In the past, you’d need a lot more start-up capital, including a storefront. That’s no longer the case, thanks to the internet and a proliferation of relatively low-cost e-commerce services: site builders like Squarespace, payment processors like Stripe, and online marketplaces provided by eBay, Amazon, Etsy, and so on.
Now, just like the ad shows, any American with an iPhone and a vision can become an entrepreneur, at least, in many circumstances and industries. This is only possible due to relatively low regulatory hurdles to starting a business in America—although there remain many needless barriers that need to be taken down—especially compared to many other countries where starting a legal business means first trudging through a thicket of red tape.
Our system still offers everyday people the chance to pursue their dreams, work flexibly, and make extra income. And, in doing so, they create wealth and opportunities for others: small businesses provide nearly half the jobs in the US.
So, no, Parton’s Squarespace ad was not in any way meant to celebrate exploitation or poor working conditions. It was intended to honor the virtue of opportunity and entrepreneurship in a free-market economy, values that remain relatively uncontroversial among most Americans. And that’s the real reason it made anti-capitalist critics on the Left so angry.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: 5 to 9, 9 to 5, Dolly Parton, Squarespace | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
With thousands of schools still closed or partially closed across the country, millions of American families are struggling to find work-life balance while educating their children at home.
One part of American society may be receiving their own special COVID-19 relief package, however.
In Forbes, Adam Andrzejewski writes that a provision in the $1.9 trillion House bill—“the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021”—would allow federal employees to make up to $1,400 a week without working.
Buried on pages 305-306 of the legislation, the provision creates a $570 million fund for disbursements to federal employees who are not working because they are caring for others because of the coronavirus.
“Among those eligible are those who are ‘unable to work’ because they are caring for school-aged children not physically in school full time due to Covid-19 precautions,” writes Andrzejewski, the CEO and founder of OpenTheBooks.
Under the legislation, full-time federal employees are eligible for 600 hours in paid leave through September, receiving up to $35 an hour.
“That’s 15 weeks for a 40-hour employee,” he writes.
If you’re wondering how federal employees were able wangle a $570 million paid leave fund (on your dime!) into that House bill so they can stay home and get paid while junior does remote learning, look no further.
The union $$ went in the right direction. pic.twitter.com/UWn0woFCmr — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) February 25, 2021
In some ways it might seem perfectly reasonable to allow employees to be paid while staying home. The circumstances are unique, after all, and many of us can empathize with parents struggling to work while schools are closed.
There are serious problems with this proposal, however. First, the legislation doesn’t distinguish between a school that is closed and one that simply allows children to learn remotely. As a result, federal employees could simply choose to have their child learn remotely and be eligible for benefits.
“Even if a federal employee’s child could be in school five days a week, if the school ‘makes optional’ virtual or hybrid schooling, it appears the parent can keep the son or daughter at home and still qualify for paid-time off under the bill,” Andrzejewsk writes.
Second, the legislation places no restrictions on a child’s age.
“An open question is whether parents of college-aged children could take paid time off?” Andrzejewsk writes. “Certainly, some colleges are virtual and there is no definition of son or daughter in the bill and no age parameters.”
The biggest problem, however, is that this provision takes money from taxpayers and then hands it out to a specific constituency.
Wow. The BidenBucks bill pays federal employees up to 15 weeks of paid leave at $1400 per week if they have to stay home to virtual school kids.
You get $1400 once. They get it every week for 15 weeks. Swamp takes care of swamp.https://t.co/4A7ktpm1Zc — Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) February 25, 2021
Essentially, the $570 million is a special perk for a select segment of the US workforce: federal employees. According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly 2.1 million civilians in the federal workforce, many of whom are represented by labor unions.
The largest union representing federal workers is the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents some 700,000 federal and DC government workers. Then there is the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which represent 110,000 and 150,000 government employees, respectively.
These organizations spent heavily on political causes in 2020. The AFGE alone spent $2.3 million in political contributions and $1.9 million in lobbying. The NTEU spent $760,000 and $1 million on contributions and lobbying, respectively. The political contributions flowed in the same direction (see below).
If you’re wondering how federal employees were able wangle a $570 million paid leave fund (on your dime!) into that House bill so they can stay home and get paid while junior does remote learning, look no further.
The union $$ went in the right direction. pic.twitter.com/UWn0woFCmr — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) February 25, 2021
Purchasing influence and perks—like 600 hours of paid leave—might sound crass or even seedy, but it’s one of the primary purposes of unions.
As the economist Hans F. Sennholz observed, governments and unions are essentially “allies in interventionism.” They seek to circumvent free markets to seize and consume the wealth of others through coercive means. And in exchange for votes and influence, unions are rewarded by the politicians with special privileges for their members.
“Labor unions deliver political votes to administrations that promise to be friendly and cooperative,” wrote Sennholz, a longtime teacher of economics and former FEE president. “The administrations in return create legal privileges and immunities for labor unions so that they may be more effective in their economic struggle.”
If you think that sounds a bit like a quid pro quo, you’re not wrong. Unions have made it clear, even publicly, that they expect returns for all those dollars and door knocking.
“Those who would oppose, delay or derail this legislation, do not ask us—do not ask the labor movement—for a dollar or a door knock,” AFL-CIO union leader Richard Trumka warned lawmakers before a key House vote last year. “We won’t be coming.”
All workers like job perks, of course. And here is nothing wrong with receiving perks from an employer. But they should pass the test of the free market—not be mandated by the government or subsidized by taxpayers.
The economist Percy L. Greaves Jr. once explained the difference between how unions operate compared to free markets.
“The free market operates according to the Golden Rule. The higher values one contributes to the marketplace, as valued by consumers, the more one receives in return,” wrote Greaves Jr., a longtime writer for US News and World Report. “Free market operations are always voluntary transactions by which all parties exchange something they have for something on which they place a higher value.”
Many parents would no doubt desire having 600 hours in paid leave to stay home while their children do virtual learning—especially since newly issued CDC guidelines would keep 90 percent of schools at least partially closed.
Few of us will have that option, however. Because the action doesn’t make economic sense. It only makes political sense. But that’s what matters when Congress spends trillions of our money. FEE’s Brad Polumbo recently highlighted 10 provisions in the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill that appear to be little more than “partisan kickbacks.”
Sadly, you can make this one number 11—and we’ve only just started looking.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, BidenBucks, COVID Aid Bill, Federal employees, Union Cronyism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
Those that deny the mass eugenics efforts that exist in the U.S. and globally today, are either pathological liars, are censorship driven manipulative propagandists, or are completely ignorant of any reality whatsoever.
“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ~ Prince Philip, in his Foreward to “If I Were an Animal” – United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.
“The world today has 6.8 billion people…that’s headed up to about 9 billion. If we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.” ~ Bill Gates
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries” ~ Henry A. Kissinger
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” ~ Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” (1920)
“That it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease”.
~ Klaus Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World
“Eugenics is a social (and ‘scientific’) movement based on the belief that the genetic quality of the human race can be improved by the use of selective breeding, as well as other often morally criticized means to eliminate groups of people considered genetically inferior, while encouraging the growth of groups judged to be genetically superior.”
Those that deny the mass eugenics efforts that exist in the U.S. and globally today, are either pathological liars, are censorship driven manipulative propagandists, or are completely ignorant of any reality whatsoever. The entire transhuman, technological, and technocracy movements that consume the ruling class today are highly based on eugenics. The openly sought and planned “Great Reset” being pursued by those claimed ruling ‘elites’ that currently run this country and the world; those desirous of that murderous and human-altering ‘progressive’ agenda, are the epitome of the modern eugenics movement. Due to the heinous nature and distasteful concept of this crusade as described early in the twentieth century, the terms used in the past have been altered to fool the collective and dumbed-down herd, and so far, that deception has been successful.
This fake pandemic is the first step being used to achieve human death and genetic alteration in order to eliminate and control millions or billions of common people, but the ever-changing reasoning for pursuing these agendas will soon morph into the excuses of sustainable development and ‘climate change.’ And given the planned destruction of the food supply that is already underway, and the intentional control and scarcity of energy, purposely-created food and energy shortages will be used to cause not only concern among the public, but to create sheer panic as well. These staged events will be blamed for governmental controlled emergency rationing, and then certain segments of the public will be cursed for their excessive use of vital necessities during a ‘crisis.’ This is a double-edged sword, as without enough food and energy, the murder of large swaths of the population can be achieved under the guise of emergency efforts to protect the dependent population at the expense of those that have prepared for this type of critical situation. This is the ultimate use of divisive propaganda by injecting a psychotic survival instinct into the minds of an already frightened populace in order to stifle empathy for others. These tactics are simply psychological warfare against the proletariat class as a whole.
‘Vaccination’ (injection of poisons), introduction of pathogens through testing, mind control, lockdowns, premeditated murder, sterilization, and fear mongering will be the tools used to turn the tide in favor of the state by artificially altering human biology, by invasive psychological manipulation, by ever increasing draconian restrictions and mandates, and by state-sponsored terror at the hands of the enforcement arm of government. If the people do not stand up en masse against this assault, the situation as described above will almost certainly be the result.
By now, the purposeful elimination of some humans, the gene and mind-altering of others, and grand sterilization campaigns, especially in developing countries, should be seen as an obvious plot that is desired and in some respects, is already underway. It is extremely difficult to consider that part of society that claims superiority over others to such an extent that they want to be able to decide who lives or dies, who is free or a slave, and who should be forcibly altered to be worthy of existence, as human beings. They are mere evil monsters.
The idea of eugenics never disappeared; it just faded into the shadows for a few decades. But today, it is once again being discussed more openly, although by another name. The supporters of eugenics, those that profess intellectual superiority over others in one form or another, are normally leftists, progressives, Postmodernists, neo-Marxists, globalists, or powerful politicians that are no longer hiding many of their views. They include university professors, scientists, technocrats, ‘health’ organization and institution officials, and the alleged ‘elites’ and their tax-free foundations that are attempting to reset the world to their liking. Bill Gates for example, comes immediately to mind, but there are many, and these types hold powerful positions in the U.S. and all around the world.
The promotion and advancement of certain human extermination, of transhuman development, and mass sterilization can be accomplished in many ways, and I would argue that this to some extent is already happening now. Gene-altering ‘vaccinations,’ immune system destruction, nanoparticle insertion, chip implants, radio wave technologies, bio-weapon releases, isolation and dehumanizing psychological techniques, starvation, and GMO food circulation are just a few of the ways of altering human biology or killing the dissenters and undesirables. This is not science fiction nor is it far-fetched. This is now a reality.
In my opinion, higher death counts will occur as time passes, especially for those that take this poisonous injection falsely called a ‘vaccine.’ Months from now will tell the tale, and it won’t be a pretty picture. The solution is total disobedience and dissent by the many. No one can make this happen except each individual, but the more that refuse to comply, the better chance we all have to survive this plotted war against humanity.
Source links: Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: covid-19, depopulation, eugenics, Klaus Schwab, Margaret Sanger, Ted Turne | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/26/coronavirus-fact-check-10-why-new-cases-are-plummeting/
The scary red numbers are all going down. Check any newspaper or covid tracking website you want. Cases. Deaths. Hospitalisations. They’re all going down, sharply, and have been for weeks, especially in the US and UK.
So, why would that be?
Pundits across the media world have made suggestions – from vaccines to lockdowns – but there’s only one that makes any real sense.
The assumption most people would make, and would be encouraged to make by the talking heads and media experts, is that the various “vaccines” have taken effect and stopped the spread of the “virus”.
Is this the case? No, no it’s not.
The decline started in mid-January, far too early for any vaccination program to have any effect. Many experts said as much:
Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said the falling case numbers can’t be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine, because not even a tenth of the population has been vaccinated, according to the CDC.
Further, the drop is happening simultaneously in different countries all around the world, and not every country is vaccinating at the same rate or even using the same vaccine. So no, the “vaccines” are not causing the drop.
Another suspect is the lockdown, with blaring propaganda stating that all the various government-imposed house arrests and “distancing” measures have finally had an impact.
That’s not it either.
Sweden, famously, never locked down at all. Yet their “cases” and “Covid related deaths” have been dropping exactly in parallel with the UK:
Clearly, if countries that never locked down are also seeing declines in case numbers, the lockdown cannot be causing them.
So what is?
Maybe for our answer, we should look at the date the decline started.
Observe this graph: See link
As you can see, the global decline in “Covid deaths” starts in mid-to-late January.
What else happened around that time?
Well, on January 13th the WHO published a memo regarding the problem of asymptomatic cases being discovered by PCR tests, and suggesting any asymptomatic positive tests be repeated.
This followed up their previous memo, instructing labs around the world to use lower cycle thresholds (CT values) for PCR tests, as values over 35 could produce false positives.
Essentially, in two memos the WHO ensured future testing would be less likely to produce false positives and made it much harder to be labelled an “asymptomatic case”.
In short, logic would suggest we’re not in fact seeing a “decline in Covid cases” or a “decrease in Covid deaths” at all.
What we’re seeing is a decline in perfectly healthy people being labelled “covid cases” based on a false positive from an unreliable testing process. And we’re seeing fewer people dying of pneumonia, cancer or other disease have “Covid19” added to their death certificate based on testing criteria designed to inflate the pandemic.
Just as we at OffG predicted would happen the moment the memo was published.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: coronavirus, new cases, PCR test, Vaccines, WHO | Leave a Comment »
Posted by M. C. on February 27, 2021
Lloyd Austin appears to be the new Bolton.
“Biden wanted to respond to the incident in Iraq,” said Max Abrahms, a professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University, “but he wanted to do it in a way that didn’t seem too heavy-handed …
Being a bomb’s ground zero for having the shovel you are carrying being mistaken for a rifle is far from heavy handed in the Pentagram’s mind. Every day stuff.
The world’s policeman…someone has to do it. Why not McDonnell Douglas?
https://erietimes-pa-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=16a354c79
Kim Hjelmgaard
USA TODAY
Pentagon airstrikes against Iranbacked militias in Syria are not only the first military action taken by President Joe Biden. They are a test of his broad pledge to pursue a foreign policy that is more cooperative and mindful of international partners than his predecessor’s but still eschews the U.S. role as the world’s police to focus on making life better for Americans, some experts and lawmakers say.
Biden on Thursday night ordered the airstrikes on multiple facilities at a Syrian- Iraqi border control point in southeastern Syria in retaliation for rocket attacks on U.S. targets in neighboring Iraq. The Pentagon identified the targets as a “number of Iranian-backed militant groups including Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada.” It called the airstrikes “proportionate” and “defensive” and said the airstrikes were taken after consultation with coalition partners and unspecified “diplomatic measures.”
The military action comes as Washington and Tehran are locked in apparent stalemate over who should take the first step to revitalize a nuclear deal exited by the Trump administration; as Biden has vowed to recalibrate national security actions to favor the middle class; and as reporting from USA TODAY has revealed the scale of U.S. overseas military bases and counterterror operations two decades after 9/11.
“We are concerned that President Biden’s first instinct when it comes to regional security in the Middle East appears to be to reach for military options instead of diplomacy,” said Ryan Costello, director of The National Iranian American Council, an organization that seeks improved relations between Washington and Tehran.
“Biden wanted to respond to the incident in Iraq,” said Max Abrahms, a professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University, “but he wanted to do it in a way that didn’t seem too heavy-handed … the more fundamental question that needs to be asked, and isn’t, is what are Iranian militias doing in Iraq? The answer is they are there partly because the U.S. toppled (Iraq’s former president) Saddam Hussein.”
Abrahms said that the Biden administration is trying to balance the instincts of veteran national security officials and diplomats such as Secretary of State Antony Blinken – Obama administration-era officials who have long gravitated toward military interventions and regime change – with “the zeitgeist of the American citizenry, which has moved over the course of the Trump administration.”
He described this “zeitgeist,” which is backed up by polling that shows many Americans are most concerned about economic and security threats closer to home, as “a more limited role for the United States in the world, a greater delineation of where our vital interests lie.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters he was “confident in the target we went after. We know what we hit.”
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based monitoring group, said the airstrikes killed at least 22 pro-Iranian fighters, wounded many more and destroyed several trucks carrying munitions.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, on facilities the U.S. struck, said he was “confident in the target we went after. We know what we hit.” ALEX BRANDON/AP
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Iran, Lloyd Austin, Pentagon, world police | Leave a Comment »
