Categories
enslavement Force government is slavery gun control Headline News human rights Humanity Intelwars Joe Biden killing lockdowns locked up militarized police Murder no freedom no liberty order followers rule by brute force rulers ruling class SWAT Teams totalitarian United States Violence wake up we are the enemy

Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute. 

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

Rule by brute force.

That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our nation.

SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Homeowners finding their homes under siege by police out to confiscate lawfully-owned guns. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

We are approaching critical mass.

The groundwork has been laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation, or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the government—or whoever happens to be calling the shots at the time—thinks. And if the powers-that-be think you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides.

In effect, you will disappear.

Our freedoms are already being made to disappear.

We have seen this come to pass under past presidents with their use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives, and legislative signing statements.

President Biden’s long list of executive orders, executive actions, proclamations, and directives is just more of the same: rule by fiat.

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

These laws, growing in popularity as a legislative means by which to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others, are yet another Trojan Horse, a stealth maneuver by the police state to gain greater power over an unsuspecting and largely gullible populace.

Nineteen states and Washington DC have red flag laws on their books.

That number is growing.

As The Washington Post reports, these laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.

In the midst of what feels like an epidemic of mass shootings (the statistics suggest otherwise), these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.

Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.

Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.

With these red flag gun laws, the stated intention is to disarm individuals who are potential threats… to “stop dangerous people before they act.”

While in theory, it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts, and the police.

We’ve been down this road before.

Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.

This is the same government that keeps re-upping the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the military to detain American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a threat.

This is the same government that has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations, and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

Let that sink in a moment.

Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.

It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer, and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash-bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash-bang grenades, and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is the blowback from all that military weaponry flowing to domestic police departments.

This is what happens when you use SWAT teams to carry out routine search warrants.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.

Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, U.S. police agencies have been working to identify and manage potential extremist “threats,” violent or otherwise, before they can become actual threats for some time now.

All you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork, and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutterdrive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social mediaappear mentally ill, serve in the militarydisagree with a law enforcement officialcall in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States.

Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

You will be tracked wherever you go.

You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

To that noxious mix, add in a proposal introduced under the Trump Administration and being considered by Biden for a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) that will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It’s the American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick all rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

Connect the dots.

Start with the powers amassed by the government under the USA Patriot Act, note the government’s ever-broadening definition of what it considers to be an “extremist,” then add in the government’s detention powers under NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies.

To that, add tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that will soon blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go, and whatever you do. And then to complete the picture, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms, and prognostication programs.

Hopefully, you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata. Finally, add in the local police agencies and SWAT teams that are being “gifted” military-grade weaponry and equipment designed for the battlefield and trained in the tactics of war.

It all adds up to a terrifying package of brute force coupled with invasive technology and totalitarian tactics.

This brings me back to those red flag gun laws.

In the short term, these gun confiscation laws may serve to temporarily delay or discourage those wishing to inflict violence on others, but it will not resolve whatever madness or hate or instability therein that causes someone to pull a trigger or launch a bomb or unleash violence on another.

Indeed, those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

Nor will these laws save us from government-instigated and directed violence at the hands of the militarized police state or the blowback from the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military-industrial complex, both of which remain largely overlooked and underestimated pieces of the discussion on gun violence in America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, in the long term, all these gun confiscation laws will do is ensure that when the police state finally cracks down, “we the people” are defenseless in the face of the government’s arsenal of weapons.

No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes. In this way, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted, and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.

The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.

Red flag laws and gun control legislation are no less a threat to our freedoms.

 

The post Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Brooklyn Center Destruction government is slavery Headline News Intelwars it's wrong to kill land of fee home of the slave lootings minnesota Morality murder is wrong out of hand Police Shootings Police State Property Protests Riots Traffic stop Violence wake up

Minnesota Descends Into Violence After Police Shoot Unarmed Man

Tensions have been running high in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, after police shot an unarmed man during a traffic stop, reportedly over an air freshener. The incident has sparked protests that descended into violence.

Police shootings are completely out of hand in “the land of the free,” but burning, looting, and destruction of the property of those who had nothing to do with this murder are also out of hand. Remember:

You Can Be Against Police Brutality & Looting and Rioting At The Same Time

The rightful response when a person doing the bidding of the ruling class murders someone is anger. But resorting to violence of any kind is still not going to solve the problem or bring back the slain.

“All he did was have air fresheners in the car and they told him to get out of the car,” Katied Wright said.

It’s illegal for drivers to hang items from the rearview mirror that may obstruct the view of the road.

According to police, the officers who stopped Wright’s car “determined that the driver of the vehicle had an outstanding warrant,” and sought to take him into custody. It’s unclear what transpired next, with police saying that Wright “re-entered the vehicle,” which prompted one of the officers to open fire.

Wright then drove “several blocks before striking another vehicle,” and was pronounced dead at the scene, while a woman in the passenger seat was injured in the crash and was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Daunte’s mother said her son was heading to a car wash when he was pulled over. She also accused police of leaving her son’s body lying at the scene for hours. -RT

Protesters chanted Wright’s name, ignoring the orders of riot police to back off, and faced off with the officers standing guard at police headquarters.

Unfortunately, the protests are not solely against the rulers who use the police to kill others. They have been marred by widespread looting as others use this as an excuse to take from others, and steal the fruits of other’s labor. It’s wrong when the government does it and it’s wrong when the public does it. Theft, including taxation, should never be tolerated if we seek a civil society.  Footage shows looters ransacking a footwear store. They also reportedly broke into a Walmart.

The police are investigating themselves right now.

The post Minnesota Descends Into Violence After Police Shoot Unarmed Man first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Anarchists Antifa Black Lives Matter Destruction Intelwars portland Ted Wheeler Violence White Supremacists

Far-left Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler is asked why ‘white supremacists’ share blame with ‘anarchists’ for city violence, destruction. His reply is a doozy.

In the wake of more left-wing violence and destruction in Portland over the weekend, left-wing Mayor Ted Wheeler was asked during a virtual news conference why “white supremacists” share the blame with “anarchists” for criminal behavior in the streets of Portland — even though all the lawlessness consistently points to Antifa and Black Lives Matter militants.

Wheeler admitted as much in his response — but made sure to emphasize the huge problem of “white nationalism” on a national level, which didn’t explain why.

What are the details?

KATU-TV noted that Monday’s conference concerned “ongoing criminal destruction, violence and intimidation small groups of self-described anarchists and white supremacists continue to inflict on local businesses, neighborhoods and people.”

Alex Zielinski, news editor of the Portland Mercury, asked Wheeler why a news release announcing the news conference mentioned “anarchists and white supremacists” as a problem when only far-left militant criminal activity had been detailed during the news conference.

Wheeler began by saying he’d defer to the Portland Police Bureau for examples of “recent white supremacist actions” in the city — and then acknowledged the accuracy of the reporter’s assessment while offering a response only a politician could give.

“We are in a time of political extremes,” Wheeler began, admitting that during the news conference city leaders are discussing “criminal destruction coming from self-described anarchist left.”

Then the mayor dropped the bomb on white supremacists — just not white supremacists in Portland, apparently:

“But we also have to acknowledge that in the United States the number-one public safety threat according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation is white nationalism. And we certainly saw elements of that coming to bear during the insurrection at the United States Capitol, and we certainly have to keep up our vigilance here in the City of Portland. I would expect that given that we are largely seen as a progressive community, we will continue to not only have the type of activities that we saw on Friday night continue to some degree, but I would also expect that we will continue to see those who are engaged in intimidation or violence against immigrants, refugees, and people of color to also continue here in the City of Portland because they know they’ll get a reaction. We have to be vigilant regardless of the politics involved. There is no room for violence or criminal destruction, and I don’t give a damn what your politics are nor should anybody else. It’s about the behavior.”

It isn’t clear if there is any evidence of lawlessness by “white supremacists” in Portland of late, and Wheeler didn’t provide any examples.

The reporter’s question and Wheeler’s answer can be found in the video of the full news conference at the bottom of KATU’s story. The relevant portion begins just after the 35-minute mark.

Anything else?

Elsewhere during the news conference, there was plenty of anger at the violence and destruction carried out by the likes of Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

“The misguided and miseducated anarchists reject civility and instead intentionally create mayhem through criminally destructive behavior tearing up our city, and this must stop,” former state Sen. Avel Gordly said, according to KATU. “You are not helping. You are hurting Black people. We need peacemakers and peacekeepers.”

Wheeler also said. “I’m just hearing loudly and clearly from the community, as I have for months, that they’re sick and tired of this criminal destruction. The community at large has already figured out that this has nothing to do with BLM or any other noble causes. This is just about people getting together to break stuff,” the station said.

Nothing new, really

Despite being barraged by Antifa and Black Lives Matter militants for the better part of 2020, Wheeler invoked the scourge of apparent “white supremacist” violence on the eve of November’s general election.

“Given the heightened concerns about potential violence, particularly from white supremist [sic] organizations and the divisive rhetoric from Washington, D.C., the need for coordination and partnership takes on statewide significance,” the mayor said at the time. “Oregon is likely to be a flashpoint.”

And despite Antifa militants in Portland last year physically attacking law enforcement, destroying property, ganging up on regular citizens, bullying elderly women, setting fires to buildings, and engaging in numerous forms of mayhem — including murder — on a nightly basis, Portland officials in October got “anti-white supremacy” training due to the “threats” the alt-right and white nationalists apparently pose.

Share
Categories
agenda bank runs Central Banks Currency digital dollar digital dollar coming elitists Fiat government is slavery Headline News Hunger hyperinflation Intelwars LEBANON Monitored no food own nothing Protests puppets traced tracked Violence wake up widespread worthless

Violence In Lebanon Over Hyperinflation: The U.S. Could Be Next

While the United States has staved off the worst of hyperinflation, for now, Lebanon is not so fortunate.  Violence has erupted in the streets as people’s currency is worthless and they can no longer afford to buy food.

This is all a part of a larger agenda. The central banks and the ruling class want a digital dollar in order to permanently control people.  By intentionally collapsing the currency, they think people will line up to get their digital wallets and pittance from the state in exchange for total slavery, and sadly, some will.

If you want a glimpse into the future, however, let’s take a look at what’s happening in Lebanon…

Lebanon’s currency collapse has accelerated and with it the economy and people’s living standards, according to a report by ZeroHedge.  It appears the Lebanese people have had enough, and the widespread protests pose the biggest threat to the nation’s stability since the 1975-1990 civil war.

Lebanon is heavily reliant on imports, particularly of commodities and consumer goods, and recent price surges have worsened the situation for an already beleaguered population, now living under the specter of potential widespread hunger. This has all been exacerbated by their government and we will not be shielded from this here in the United States. Once the central banks cease to manipulate the monetary system they set up to enrich themselves, the facade falls and we could very well see similar situations in most corners of the U.S.

As if that’s not bad enough, the Lebanese Energy Minister Raymond Ghajar said that cash to fund power generation was running out, warning that the country may be plunged into darkness by April, according to a report by RT.

Prepare now, because this kind of currency meltdown may hit fast and without warning.  Banks won’t be able to supply you with currency and what you do have will be worth less than toilet paper.

Make sure you have barterable goods.  Those could be gold or silver, but could also be soaps, canned foods, water, and other necessities. Know how to barter and what will be of value if the current monetary system does crash because the solution that will be proposed will be further enslavement you will never be able to escape from.

Once this happens, it’s up to us to live outside their system and make it work or be destined to be a cog in the machine of control forever.

 

The post Violence In Lebanon Over Hyperinflation: The U.S. Could Be Next first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
deaths doses Fear Force gene therapy government is slavery Headline News Humanity injuries Intelwars Joe Biden Mainstream media masses mRNA official narrative panicked People Politicians sheep Shots slaves system of control United States vaccines Violence wake up

COVID Vaccine Tracker: Almost 20% Have Been “Vaccinated”

Since vaccine distribution began in the United States on December 14, more than 95.7 million doses of mRNA gene therapy have been administered. That means (if we can trust the CDC’s numbers) 18.8% of the total U.S. population, according to federal data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have willingly taken this experimental shot.

The U.S. is currently administering over 2.1 million shots a day, according to NPR. And then they admit the truth: most people don’t actually want this garbage injected into their bodies.

The speed of vaccination has improved since December, but there are still millions of more doses distributed to states than have been administered to people. –NPR

Joe Biden wants you all “vaccinated” even though legally speaking, what they are injecting is not a vaccine, but a gene therapy.

COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines

If their numbers aren’t being overstated (which is highly likely considering all the false statistics and lies they put out to panic people into getting this shot in the first place) almost 20% of people have taken the vaccine willingly. But 80% have firmly said “no” even as they open up the availability of the gene therapy shots to more and more.

More COIVD-19 Vax Deaths: Think They’ll Blame This On COVID-21?

Mainstream media propaganda is also saying they are going to need you to get the vaccine before this virus mutates out of control and the vaccines don’t work.  Yet the ruling class and big pharma have already admitted they may need to change the “vaccines” that they also admitted don’t work to make them not work against new mutations of the virus. You can’t make this up.  They really want you to believe in this garbage they are selling.

Big Pharma May “Need To Change” COVID Vaccines To “Fight” All of The New Mutations

They want us all to take this shot. They won’t stop until we are all under their complete control, and they have said it themselves.

Ruling Class: The Scamdemic Won’t End Until The WHOLE WORLD Is Vaccinated

This is one crazy matrix we live in! Buckle up for the ride. It may have only just begun.

The post COVID Vaccine Tracker: Almost 20% Have Been “Vaccinated” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
attack Cancel culture control COVID-19 dissent Dissenters Force government is slavery Great Reset Headline News Health illness Intelwars lethality lockdowns Medical Tyranny New World Order plandemic political parastates POVERTY punishment scamdemic Science vaccines Violence Woke culture

The Brutal Attack on Scientific Dissent

This article was published by Paul E. Alexander at the American Institute for Economic Research. 

The Covid-19 pandemic has been catastrophic and devastating for those who have succumbed to it. The important issue for us societally and globally is that the risk group is defined and we know much better in March 2021 how to target and manage a response. March 2021 is not February 2020.

Moreover, the benefits of the governmental actions – lockdowns – have been overly overstated and inflated while the harms have been devastating. Those include harms to our children, the poorer children and minority children, undiagnosed and untreated diseases, excess mortality in years to come from the lockdowns, the escalating suicide and drug overdoses from the lockdowns, the crushing domestic abuse and child abuse, sexual abuse of our children, the massive psychological harms, lost jobs and closed businesses, and the far-reaching catastrophic impact on women and poorer children.

Senior pandemic experts have written extensively on why such measures are not to be used in a pandemic and why they never advocated for these punitive actions even when they were considering epidemics and pandemics with greater lethality. They understood the ramifications and sadly, we as societies are now left to pick up the pieces but with no end in sight to these restrictive crushing, often unscientific, unsound, and illogical mandates.

Sadly, as part of the responding, governments are now faced with considering setting laws and also enhancing existing ones that would protect academic freedom and hold accountable those who threaten academic freedom by their reactions, reactions that are too often threatening and slanderous to contrarian and skeptical viewpoints of these questionable and often failed edicts and mandates. Globally we have seen a sharp rise in verbal and social media online attacks on persons who hold contrarian views on Covid-19 societal lockdown policies that have been implemented.

What are these contrarians guilty of? Their guilt stems from voicing well-founded doubts and reservations about the value and effectiveness of societal lockdowns and other governmental policies as a Covid-19 response. Their crime is that they wish to consider both the harms of the virus and the totality of the impact of the policies and mandates. A consideration of the impact of the policies in an objective manner. A much broader view than simply the basic science and lethality of the pathogen. These contrarians, some as policy experts with a medical and research scientist background, are arguing against the utility and need for policies and mandates that seem arbitrary, have been very destructive on societies, and are essentially unsound and wholly unscientific.

Moreover, if you are considered a conservative politically (whether you are or not), then you are in double jeopardy and subject to a further depth of hostility and acrimony, often by academic peers. What has become clear is that across the board, politics has invaded science and politics has been a rate-limiting step in Covid-19 responding by governments, public health systems, and medical experts. Very serious far-reaching decisions are being made that are altering societal structure and function, and it is politics that is underpinning the decision-making, and not the science. What is incredible is that those who oppose and question the societal restrictions are being blamed for the failures of these policies that were broadly implemented. Not the failed policy itself, just the act of questioning it.

The invidious, vicious, malicious, and brutal career-altering attacks are against those who dare to speak out and voice their often ‘expert’ opinions against Covid-19 orthodoxies and originate from persons (often those in the research medical community) who disagree with a contrarian’s position on Covid-19 public health policies. There is a punishing terrorisation, intimidation and maligning that arises from the vicious attacks on contrarian or skeptical academics, that often results in tremendous and crushing losses to the contrarian’s personal safety, welfare, and livelihood. There is this ‘cancel culture mob mentality’ that ensues, and the threats and harassment are very troubling, even when the skeptical academic(s) lays out their view based on actual data, evidence, and science.

The attacks speak to a cognitive dissonance of sorts whereby only the current policies and views of the enabling decision-makers are to be considered. Only what they think is correct. No dissent, no debate. However, it is becoming understood now that many academics and research scientists do disagree and some disagree extensively with the government lockdown policies yet are very afraid to speak out given they know they will be derided, attacked, slandered, and smeared.

On first blush one could easily dismiss the woke culture and media mob as nutjobs and all of it as being trivial, nonsense, and illogical. However, make no mistake, they know what they are doing and who their targets are and the calamitous damage they inflict on innocent people is broad, deep, far reaching, and consequential as they pathologize dissent and marginalize unwelcomed voices in their ‘Age of Lysenkoism.’ What is even more outrageous is that those who have implemented the draconian and punitive societal restrictions that have accrued so much devastation will not even consider reassessing their policies to see how and why they failed, when alternative viewpoints are tabled. No, their approach is to use the rabid hysterical media to go on the attack, to smear, and blame the contrarians who questioned these failed policies and mandates, for the very failure of the policies and mandates that were implemented. It has gotten to a point now where the media has garnered near-zero credibility and the public believes near zero in terms of what the media prints.

Sweden has said enough and has now responded by taking leadership in protecting academic freedom by seeking to amend its Higher Education Act, and this is long overdue. “To strengthen academic freedom, the Swedish government has proposed a new amendment that points out that education and research must be protected to enable people to freely discover, research, and share knowledge.” The reality is that this crisis of contrarian positions has all come about due to the devastating and crushing harms that accrue societally due to the Covid-19 inspired societal lockdowns, business closures, school closures, and mask mandates.

For example, academics and scientists such as Dr. Scott Atlas and authors of the Great Barrington Declaration who are routinely attacked have called for a more ‘balanced’ approach to Covid-19 responding; that is, age-risk targeted, with focused strong protection of the vulnerable (an unprecedented focus on the elderly, frail, infirmed, higher-risk persons) across the society (employing very detailed real-time monitoring, intensive testing, proactive public warnings, and advisements/messages, engaging in the highest standards of hygiene, sanitation, and social distancing especially when interacting with high-risk persons), with younger lower-risk persons simultaneously being allowed to live their lives reasonably normal and by taking sensible precautions. To reduce risk to the greatest extent feasible. This approach as a vaccine(s) is rolled out (and while hospitals are adequately prepared), will help get closer to population level ‘herd’ immunity as the lower risk populations live normal day-to-day lives and are allowed to become exposed naturally and harmlessly to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (you let them be exposed naturally, and do not prevent them, nor do you deliberately cause exposure), given that evidence is clear that they are at substantially low risk of severe illness or death if infected.

Some contrarians have also called for the use of potentially life-saving early treatment for higher-risk Covid-19 positive patients (elderly), before SARS-CoV-2 infected patients/residents have worsened in their private homes or nursing homes during the later stages of the disease sequela. The core argument is that the person is at much greater risk of hospitalization and death as the virus replicates and time goes by while they are in a ‘wait-and-see’ mode outside of the hospital setting. Thus, why not use existing safe, cheap, available, regulatory approved, and effective therapeutics (repurposed) that have been used successfully for years? If these drugs can save lives, why allow the patient to ‘sicken in place’ and likely die? These early treatment contrarians have come up against the entrenched medical establishment who would have none of it, rather preferring to engage in what is known as ‘therapeutic nihilism.’

In this regard for example, when experts and academics who speak out by calling for the balanced approach to Covid-19 responding and for the catastrophic harms of the lockdown policies to be factored into the decision-making by government bureaucrats and by adopting an age-risk targeted approach, they are denounced and pilloried by the general media, social media, and alarmingly, by their own academic peers. Yet how is this approach not reasonable and sensible? Protect the vulnerable (that would be the aged) and keep the economy/society open in order to not inflict even more damage and harm on people.

There appears to be this personal vendetta, vindictiveness, and scorn heaped upon alternative viewpoints, regardless of whether the alternative view may actually be more optimal. Tobin explains the intolerance to opposing viewpoints by stating that “All it usually takes is an accusation, a circulated letter, or a demonstration of some sort, and the woke usually get their way […] most university administrators obey the cancel mob and punish whoever has been deemed to have stepped out of line.” There must be absolute conformity and if there is none, then there is rancorous intimidation and one is disparaged with impunity.

Who are these victims of this incessant drive to silence contrarians, to silence experts who raise concerns about the draconian and unscientific lockdowns and school closures? Who offered alternatives to the devastation visited upon societies by the needless governmental unsound edicts? Who advocates for early treatment to save lives? What are the crimes these heretics have committed? Perhaps no one misbeliever, no heretic or apostate has taken as much relentless online and media abuse and savagery as Dr. Scott Atlas (Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute, Stanford University, and advisor to President Trump on the coronavirus Task Force).

Three Stanford faculty (Pizzo, Spiegel, and Mello) published an article in JAMA alluding to Atlas “threatening the nation’s health” by his policy positions which focused on very strong protection of the frail and high-risk populations, a gearing up of the hospitals to respond, and a safe and sensible reopen of schools and society using careful necessary precautions. The JAMA article read more like a hit piece on Atlas and was fraught with inaccuracies as to his positions and clearly sought to mischaracterize his statements, saying Atlas had:

disputed the need for masks; argued that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects; maintained that allowing the virus to spread naturally will not result in more deaths than other strategies; stated that young people are not harmed by the virus and cannot spread the disease; reportedly pressured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue guidance (later reversed) stating that asymptomatic individuals need not be tested; and made unsupported claims about the immunity conferred by surviving infection.

On reading very closely, the writers provided no evidence to support their article claims. How could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas? While the aim is not to repudiate such a fine institution and the aim is not to allocate a lot of blame to Stanford as an institution, we are left to ask, how could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University not strongly repudiate its extremist faculty members who engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas and other contrarian faculty?

For example, the JAMA writers claimed that Atlas called for allowing younger persons to be exposed to the virus deliberately so as to promote herd immunity. Yet Atlas has stated that this is not nor has ever been his position, his position being double and triple down protection of the elderly (high-risk persons with underlying medical conditions, frail, infirmed) and in doing this, the isolation of the entire population becomes senseless and essentially worthless. This is because the vast majority of people and younger persons have very little risk of having severe illness or death once infected. The data is clear on this. The focus has to be on safeguarding the most vulnerable. The fact is that the vast majority of infected people will recover and become immune. This approach as mentioned earlier, along with vaccinations, would work to arrive at population-level herd’ immunity.

It is quite easy to see that Atlas meant you do not stop younger healthy people from being infected by societal constraints, yet you do not deliberately infect them. Which sensible person would mean this and moreover, how would these JAMA writers not understand what Dr. Atlas is saying, which essentially is calling for exposure ‘naturally’ and ‘harmlessly’ as part of normal day-to-day living? Yet they cherry-pick, mischaracterize and cause a vicious onslaught on the person’s good name. Stated another way, when there is socialization among low-risk groups, this is an opportunity for developing widespread immunity and eradicating the threat. In another mischaracterization of his statements in their JAMA piece, they assert that Atlas questioned the use of masks and social distancing. Yet his positions have been that a mask is not needed if you are alone, which is a sensible contention, and that masks are needed if you cannot adequately socially distance.

Yet one must ask the question, what did Dr. Atlas do? Yes, he argued against treating Covid-19 ‘at all costs’ for the harms far outweighed the benefits of the societal restrictions, and a more balanced ‘age-risk targeted approach’ was optimal. Is he a villain for this? Is there villainy in his heart or on his part because he questioned and raised well-founded concerns and doubts about the effectiveness of the lockdowns? Or school closures? Or mask mandates? If his positions and analysis are informative and could save lives, do they not bear being considered and at the least given serious debate? Or was all of this really because he worked with the Trump administration?

Why should someone be treated so disastrously simply because they were connected to the Trump administration, their words mischaracterized and leaked to the media in a manner to distort and smear? How could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas due to his work with the administration when if you paid attention, his policy positions called for the balancing of the benefits and harms in mitigation measures given the crushing harms that could have and did accrue due to the lockdowns and school closures? He was actually being prophetic, almost a Covid whisperer, and issued urgent warnings that to this day remain largely unheeded.

There was also a further media attack on Atlas in early 2021 as well as others such as Richard Epstein and Victor Davis Hanson as a means to delegitimize them for their various positions on Covid-19 issues, again by Stanford’s own faculty. Focusing on Atlas, these attackers seeking to malign his name and character continued baseless straw-man arguments and gross distortions of his statements and policy positions. These Stanford academics were using derogatory claims and no evidence to support their writing, trying desperately to delegitimize Atlas and destroy his name and career. Similarly, 105 Stanford medical and health-policy faculty members published a punishing letter claiming Atlas engaged in “deliberate misrepresentations of the ‘established science’ surrounding Covid-19 that ‘will lead to immense avoidable harm.’” Brazenly, in claiming that he misrepresented scientific facts as if signaling that they were not even obliged to, these 105 letter writers failed to cite any publications of statements by Dr. Atlas that could support and underpin their attacks and claims.

A very recent veiled attack on Atlas that merits mention in a bit more detail comes from Noah Carl when he wrote “Atlas arguably has overstated the case against social distancing.” Such statements by Carl are factually incorrect and are meant to mislead and are very duplicitous when you examine the actual record and statements by Atlas. Atlas’s position has always been that we cannot treat Covid at all costs for it “is severely restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public, creating a massive health disaster, separate from a potential world poverty crisis with almost incalculable consequences.”

Dr. Atlas’s focus has always been i) protect the high-risk group with an unprecedented focus – with highly detailed, real-time monitoring; prioritized, intensive testing of nursing home staff and residents; proactive warnings to the highest-risk elderly in regions of increasing infection activity; massive extra resources, including point-of-care testing in all nursing homes, personal protective equipment, infection control training, and rapid mobilization of CDC strike teams for surge testing as needed; an adoption of the highest standards of hygiene and distancing ii) careful monitoring of hospitals and ICUs in all counties and states with precision to prevent overcrowding – and rapidly increase capacity in those few hospitals needing personnel, beds, PPE and other supplies if required and iii) leveraging resources to guide businesses, transportation, and schools to safely reopen and remain open, understanding harms of extending the lockdown are severe.

For example, and to evidence of how misguided the attack and smear by Carl was, in The HillAtlas wrote “[…] let’s finally focus on protection for the most vulnerable — that means nursing home patients, who are already living under controlled access. This would include strictly regulating all who enter and care for nursing home members by requiring testing and protective masks for all who interact with these highly vulnerable people. No Covid-19-positive patient can resume residence until definitively cleared by testing. We should issue rational guidelines advising the highest standards of hygiene and sanitation and appropriate social distancing while interacting with elderly friends and family members at risk, including those with diabetes, obesity, and other chronic conditions.”

Now, where in this written piece by Dr. Atlas (all of Dr. Atlas’s statements essentially surround what is stated above) is there any indication that he does not agree with social distancing or misrepresents the case for social distancing or has a position that is threatening or harmful to the public? It is clear from our reading of his statements, whether you take them verbatim or infer meanings, that Dr. Atlas advocates for strong mitigation measures, that include extra enhanced sanitization, social distancing, masks as needed, limitations on group gatherings, testing, and an acute focus in high-risk groups, and other increased protections so as to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus.

Similarly, an early contrarian being Nobel Prize winner Dr. Michael Levitt, who was a critic of societal lockdowns, became disinvited from his appearance and keynote talk at a biosystems conference. Dr. Levitt was advised that there are “too many calls by other speakers threatening to quit if you were there. They all complained about your Covid claims.” Dr. Levitt has shared the experience via Twitter claiming a “New Dark Age Cometh.”

Another example of the irrational woke cancel culture mob attacking an academic expert comes via the recent announcement by Swedish scientist Dr. Jonas F Ludvigsson that he was quitting his work on Covid-19 due to an onslaught of threats from people who disagreed with his research findings. The reaction has been venomous due to his publication in the NEJM that there were zero deaths from Covid-19 in Swedish children during the examination period, and relatively few children in Sweden became ill during the first wave of the pandemic (of 1.95 million Swedish children under 16 years of age).

Dr. Kulvinder Gill, who is an Ontario pediatric doctor (co-founder of the advocacy group Concerned Ontario Doctors), also received the wrath of the media, the social media, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Canada (as well as the Ontario Medical Association) for questioning the effectiveness of prolonged lockdowns (para there was “absolutely no medical or scientific reason for this prolonged, harmful and illogical lockdown”) and discussing the merits of T-cell immunity and early treatment for higher-risk patients using established antivirals that had a safe and effective track record. It is not difficult to appreciate the specter of racism, discrimination, and bullying levied upon Dr. Gill, who has now taken legal action for the extensive and vile defamations by the media and academic and medical colleagues.

Let us also consider the sordid attacks on the epidemiologists and scientists who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration (leads being Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff) which sought to address the serious concerns surrounding Covid-19 lockdown policies (disastrous physical and mental health impacts) by outlining an approach that was more of a ‘Focused Protection.’ The declaration states as its core thesis that “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice…” Dr. Gupta has remarked that the attacks on her have been very vicious with people calling her evil and Dr. Rupert Beale who is a group lead at the Francis Crick Institute stated with regards to the Declaration that “What everyone really thinks is, ‘this is all f***ing stupid.’” Toby Young at The Spectator wrote “So why haven’t you heard of it (Great Barrington Declaration)? The short answer is there’s been a well-orchestrated attempt to suppress and discredit it.”

Very similar attacks on the reputation of academics and experts come via a highly credentialed group of clinicians and scientists seeking to advocate for the use of early outpatient therapy (sequenced and combined anti-virals, corticosteroids, and antiplatelets/antithrombotics) in high-risk Covid virus-positive patients who are symptomatic. This approach seeks to stop the viral replication and progression of disease sequelae before the patient/resident worsens and the risk of hospitalization and death escalates. The smears and attacks on the reputation of such highly skilled physicians seeking to minimize Covid-19 hospitalization and death took a turn for the worse when at a Senate hearing (chaired by Senator Ron Johnson) on Covid-19 outpatient treatment, Dr. Harvey Risch (Yale Professor and clinician), Dr. Peter McCullough (Baylor University and clinician), and Dr. George Fareed (clinician and Professor), along with Senator Johnson, were referred to as the ‘snake-oil salesmen of the Senate.’

This presentation of the attacks on Covid-19 contrarian voices can go on and on. What do we have here? We have a callous situation of experts who are guilty of nothing other than stepping up to help reduce the suffering of their populations and save lives in this Covid-19 emergency. People who were asked to serve for the public good and made the decision to. Make no mistake, they will not be the only ones burnt at the stake of the woke mob and this is very urgent and scandalous for very smart people with substantial contributions, and pedigree are being silenced. These high-quality selfless and generous academics and experts from the US, Canada, and the UK (and elsewhere) are being maliciously attacked in the media and it comes at great peril to their safety, their names, their characters, and careers. This has to be stopped, for the chilling effect can have a devastating impact on free speech and the sharing and exchange of needed high-level, high-quality technical thinking and expertise when it is needed most.

Perhaps Ole Petter Ottersen, who is the president of the Karolinska Institute, gives us the needed road map to deal with this shameful and disgraceful period and captures the situation best by saying

A tough debate and a diversity of opinions based on facts and evidence are necessary elements of science and public discourse, but hateful and scornful accusations and personal attacks cannot be tolerated. We already see that researchers retreat from the public debate after being threatened or harassed, and in my own institution a leading researcher just decided to give up his covid-19 research for the same reason […] the coronavirus did not come with a handbook […] In a situation with so many unknowns it is more important than ever that opinions are voiced and experts heard, even if their opinions run counter to current policies.

No example is befitting enough to show the hubris, the arrogance, the duplicity, the disrespect and disregard for other expert persons seeking to help in this crisis than when Dr. Ashish Jha of Brown University informed a Senate hearing in which he was opposed to early treatment, that he had not treated a single Covid-19 patient while using his Senate testimony to question and tacitly discredit the testimony of the early outpatient treatment advocates who had actually treated thousands of Covid-19 patients and used the treatments successfully. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment censoring by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.” Sadly, he is very apropos. Perhaps Atlas and colleagues may have indeed had the last word in their response to recent attacks by Stanford by raising legitimate questions on Stanford’s dramatic decline in the rankings on free speech leaving them to ask “Does the wind of freedom still blow at Stanford? Or is it the stale breath of ideological conformism and intimidation that we detect?”

Chastising scientists and medical researchers whose thinking is against mainstream media is deplorable and it stunts a more rich and meaningful dialogue of the means to combat this pandemic. This is especially so for our young people in schools and universities. They are looking on and it is essential for students to hear and consider ideas from many sources, especially the ideas they may not agree with. This is how we learn to think critically. What do you think they must be thinking when they witness this destructive culture against contrarian viewpoints?

Science cannot advance without scientific dialogue on the merits of emerging research and treatment options. The lack of openness in fueling evidence-based conversations results in one very tragic consequence for the public – sound research that could be informative and contribute to the well-being of Americans during this pandemic is silenced. Let’s face it, the benefits of these societal restrictions have been totally exaggerated and the harms to our societies and children have been very severe (the harms to children, the undiagnosed illness that will result in excess mortality in years to come, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation in our young people, drug overdoses and suicides due to the lockdown policies, the crushing isolation due to the lockdowns, psychological harmsdomestic and child abuse, sexual abuse of childrenloss of jobs and businesses and the devastating impact, and the massive numbers of deaths that are coming from the lockdowns that will impact heavily on women and minorities.

The impact is particularly gut-wrenching and brutal for the impoverished among us, and especially so for our poorer children. We have not seen the real impact of this pandemic yet, but it is to come and it will be far-reaching for years and decades to come and it is the reason why pandemic experts (Henderson and Inglesby, etc.) have never advocated for such draconian lockdown steps in the face of a pandemic. They understood what the catastrophic result would be. We must never forget this and we desperately need alternative voices now to get us out of this catastrophic mess our governments, their expert advisors, and media medical advisors seem incapable of doing.

I end by the words of the esteemed Professor Jonathan Turley and ask Stanford to pay close attention to these words given the next move is theirs in righting this vicious onslaught: “Faculty have largely stayed silent as campaigns target these professors and teachers. While some may relish such cleansing of schools of opposing voices, many are likely intimidated by such campaigns and do not want to be the next targeted by such groups. We have often defended the free speech rights of faculty on the left who have made hateful comments about whites, males, and conservatives. Yet, there is an eerie silence when conservatives are targeted for their own views. Sweden has shown how this is a global issue but that the response outside of the United States has been markedly different.”

The post The Brutal Attack on Scientific Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
attack Cancel culture control COVID-19 dissent Dissenters Force government is slavery Great Reset Headline News Health illness Intelwars lethality lockdowns Medical Tyranny New World Order plandemic political parastates POVERTY punishment scamdemic Science vaccines Violence Woke culture

The Brutal Attack on Scientific Dissent

This article was published by Paul E. Alexander at the American Institute for Economic Research. 

The Covid-19 pandemic has been catastrophic and devastating for those who have succumbed to it. The important issue for us societally and globally is that the risk group is defined and we know much better in March 2021 how to target and manage a response. March 2021 is not February 2020.

Moreover, the benefits of the governmental actions – lockdowns – have been overly overstated and inflated while the harms have been devastating. Those include harms to our children, the poorer children and minority children, undiagnosed and untreated diseases, excess mortality in years to come from the lockdowns, the escalating suicide and drug overdoses from the lockdowns, the crushing domestic abuse and child abuse, sexual abuse of our children, the massive psychological harms, lost jobs and closed businesses, and the far-reaching catastrophic impact on women and poorer children.

Senior pandemic experts have written extensively on why such measures are not to be used in a pandemic and why they never advocated for these punitive actions even when they were considering epidemics and pandemics with greater lethality. They understood the ramifications and sadly, we as societies are now left to pick up the pieces but with no end in sight to these restrictive crushing, often unscientific, unsound, and illogical mandates.

Sadly, as part of the responding, governments are now faced with considering setting laws and also enhancing existing ones that would protect academic freedom and hold accountable those who threaten academic freedom by their reactions, reactions that are too often threatening and slanderous to contrarian and skeptical viewpoints of these questionable and often failed edicts and mandates. Globally we have seen a sharp rise in verbal and social media online attacks on persons who hold contrarian views on Covid-19 societal lockdown policies that have been implemented.

What are these contrarians guilty of? Their guilt stems from voicing well-founded doubts and reservations about the value and effectiveness of societal lockdowns and other governmental policies as a Covid-19 response. Their crime is that they wish to consider both the harms of the virus and the totality of the impact of the policies and mandates. A consideration of the impact of the policies in an objective manner. A much broader view than simply the basic science and lethality of the pathogen. These contrarians, some as policy experts with a medical and research scientist background, are arguing against the utility and need for policies and mandates that seem arbitrary, have been very destructive on societies, and are essentially unsound and wholly unscientific.

Moreover, if you are considered a conservative politically (whether you are or not), then you are in double jeopardy and subject to a further depth of hostility and acrimony, often by academic peers. What has become clear is that across the board, politics has invaded science and politics has been a rate-limiting step in Covid-19 responding by governments, public health systems, and medical experts. Very serious far-reaching decisions are being made that are altering societal structure and function, and it is politics that is underpinning the decision-making, and not the science. What is incredible is that those who oppose and question the societal restrictions are being blamed for the failures of these policies that were broadly implemented. Not the failed policy itself, just the act of questioning it.

The invidious, vicious, malicious, and brutal career-altering attacks are against those who dare to speak out and voice their often ‘expert’ opinions against Covid-19 orthodoxies and originate from persons (often those in the research medical community) who disagree with a contrarian’s position on Covid-19 public health policies. There is a punishing terrorisation, intimidation and maligning that arises from the vicious attacks on contrarian or skeptical academics, that often results in tremendous and crushing losses to the contrarian’s personal safety, welfare, and livelihood. There is this ‘cancel culture mob mentality’ that ensues, and the threats and harassment are very troubling, even when the skeptical academic(s) lays out their view based on actual data, evidence, and science.

The attacks speak to a cognitive dissonance of sorts whereby only the current policies and views of the enabling decision-makers are to be considered. Only what they think is correct. No dissent, no debate. However, it is becoming understood now that many academics and research scientists do disagree and some disagree extensively with the government lockdown policies yet are very afraid to speak out given they know they will be derided, attacked, slandered, and smeared.

On first blush one could easily dismiss the woke culture and media mob as nutjobs and all of it as being trivial, nonsense, and illogical. However, make no mistake, they know what they are doing and who their targets are and the calamitous damage they inflict on innocent people is broad, deep, far reaching, and consequential as they pathologize dissent and marginalize unwelcomed voices in their ‘Age of Lysenkoism.’ What is even more outrageous is that those who have implemented the draconian and punitive societal restrictions that have accrued so much devastation will not even consider reassessing their policies to see how and why they failed, when alternative viewpoints are tabled. No, their approach is to use the rabid hysterical media to go on the attack, to smear, and blame the contrarians who questioned these failed policies and mandates, for the very failure of the policies and mandates that were implemented. It has gotten to a point now where the media has garnered near-zero credibility and the public believes near zero in terms of what the media prints.

Sweden has said enough and has now responded by taking leadership in protecting academic freedom by seeking to amend its Higher Education Act, and this is long overdue. “To strengthen academic freedom, the Swedish government has proposed a new amendment that points out that education and research must be protected to enable people to freely discover, research, and share knowledge.” The reality is that this crisis of contrarian positions has all come about due to the devastating and crushing harms that accrue societally due to the Covid-19 inspired societal lockdowns, business closures, school closures, and mask mandates.

For example, academics and scientists such as Dr. Scott Atlas and authors of the Great Barrington Declaration who are routinely attacked have called for a more ‘balanced’ approach to Covid-19 responding; that is, age-risk targeted, with focused strong protection of the vulnerable (an unprecedented focus on the elderly, frail, infirmed, higher-risk persons) across the society (employing very detailed real-time monitoring, intensive testing, proactive public warnings, and advisements/messages, engaging in the highest standards of hygiene, sanitation, and social distancing especially when interacting with high-risk persons), with younger lower-risk persons simultaneously being allowed to live their lives reasonably normal and by taking sensible precautions. To reduce risk to the greatest extent feasible. This approach as a vaccine(s) is rolled out (and while hospitals are adequately prepared), will help get closer to population level ‘herd’ immunity as the lower risk populations live normal day-to-day lives and are allowed to become exposed naturally and harmlessly to the SARS-CoV-2 virus (you let them be exposed naturally, and do not prevent them, nor do you deliberately cause exposure), given that evidence is clear that they are at substantially low risk of severe illness or death if infected.

Some contrarians have also called for the use of potentially life-saving early treatment for higher-risk Covid-19 positive patients (elderly), before SARS-CoV-2 infected patients/residents have worsened in their private homes or nursing homes during the later stages of the disease sequela. The core argument is that the person is at much greater risk of hospitalization and death as the virus replicates and time goes by while they are in a ‘wait-and-see’ mode outside of the hospital setting. Thus, why not use existing safe, cheap, available, regulatory approved, and effective therapeutics (repurposed) that have been used successfully for years? If these drugs can save lives, why allow the patient to ‘sicken in place’ and likely die? These early treatment contrarians have come up against the entrenched medical establishment who would have none of it, rather preferring to engage in what is known as ‘therapeutic nihilism.’

In this regard for example, when experts and academics who speak out by calling for the balanced approach to Covid-19 responding and for the catastrophic harms of the lockdown policies to be factored into the decision-making by government bureaucrats and by adopting an age-risk targeted approach, they are denounced and pilloried by the general media, social media, and alarmingly, by their own academic peers. Yet how is this approach not reasonable and sensible? Protect the vulnerable (that would be the aged) and keep the economy/society open in order to not inflict even more damage and harm on people.

There appears to be this personal vendetta, vindictiveness, and scorn heaped upon alternative viewpoints, regardless of whether the alternative view may actually be more optimal. Tobin explains the intolerance to opposing viewpoints by stating that “All it usually takes is an accusation, a circulated letter, or a demonstration of some sort, and the woke usually get their way […] most university administrators obey the cancel mob and punish whoever has been deemed to have stepped out of line.” There must be absolute conformity and if there is none, then there is rancorous intimidation and one is disparaged with impunity.

Who are these victims of this incessant drive to silence contrarians, to silence experts who raise concerns about the draconian and unscientific lockdowns and school closures? Who offered alternatives to the devastation visited upon societies by the needless governmental unsound edicts? Who advocates for early treatment to save lives? What are the crimes these heretics have committed? Perhaps no one misbeliever, no heretic or apostate has taken as much relentless online and media abuse and savagery as Dr. Scott Atlas (Robert Wesson Senior Fellow at Hoover Institute, Stanford University, and advisor to President Trump on the coronavirus Task Force).

Three Stanford faculty (Pizzo, Spiegel, and Mello) published an article in JAMA alluding to Atlas “threatening the nation’s health” by his policy positions which focused on very strong protection of the frail and high-risk populations, a gearing up of the hospitals to respond, and a safe and sensible reopen of schools and society using careful necessary precautions. The JAMA article read more like a hit piece on Atlas and was fraught with inaccuracies as to his positions and clearly sought to mischaracterize his statements, saying Atlas had:

disputed the need for masks; argued that many public health orders aimed at increasing social distancing could be forgone without ill effects; maintained that allowing the virus to spread naturally will not result in more deaths than other strategies; stated that young people are not harmed by the virus and cannot spread the disease; reportedly pressured the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to issue guidance (later reversed) stating that asymptomatic individuals need not be tested; and made unsupported claims about the immunity conferred by surviving infection.

On reading very closely, the writers provided no evidence to support their article claims. How could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas? While the aim is not to repudiate such a fine institution and the aim is not to allocate a lot of blame to Stanford as an institution, we are left to ask, how could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University not strongly repudiate its extremist faculty members who engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas and other contrarian faculty?

For example, the JAMA writers claimed that Atlas called for allowing younger persons to be exposed to the virus deliberately so as to promote herd immunity. Yet Atlas has stated that this is not nor has ever been his position, his position being double and triple down protection of the elderly (high-risk persons with underlying medical conditions, frail, infirmed) and in doing this, the isolation of the entire population becomes senseless and essentially worthless. This is because the vast majority of people and younger persons have very little risk of having severe illness or death once infected. The data is clear on this. The focus has to be on safeguarding the most vulnerable. The fact is that the vast majority of infected people will recover and become immune. This approach as mentioned earlier, along with vaccinations, would work to arrive at population-level herd’ immunity.

It is quite easy to see that Atlas meant you do not stop younger healthy people from being infected by societal constraints, yet you do not deliberately infect them. Which sensible person would mean this and moreover, how would these JAMA writers not understand what Dr. Atlas is saying, which essentially is calling for exposure ‘naturally’ and ‘harmlessly’ as part of normal day-to-day living? Yet they cherry-pick, mischaracterize and cause a vicious onslaught on the person’s good name. Stated another way, when there is socialization among low-risk groups, this is an opportunity for developing widespread immunity and eradicating the threat. In another mischaracterization of his statements in their JAMA piece, they assert that Atlas questioned the use of masks and social distancing. Yet his positions have been that a mask is not needed if you are alone, which is a sensible contention, and that masks are needed if you cannot adequately socially distance.

Yet one must ask the question, what did Dr. Atlas do? Yes, he argued against treating Covid-19 ‘at all costs’ for the harms far outweighed the benefits of the societal restrictions, and a more balanced ‘age-risk targeted approach’ was optimal. Is he a villain for this? Is there villainy in his heart or on his part because he questioned and raised well-founded concerns and doubts about the effectiveness of the lockdowns? Or school closures? Or mask mandates? If his positions and analysis are informative and could save lives, do they not bear being considered and at the least given serious debate? Or was all of this really because he worked with the Trump administration?

Why should someone be treated so disastrously simply because they were connected to the Trump administration, their words mischaracterized and leaked to the media in a manner to distort and smear? How could an esteemed academic institution like Stanford University engage in a campaign against Dr. Atlas due to his work with the administration when if you paid attention, his policy positions called for the balancing of the benefits and harms in mitigation measures given the crushing harms that could have and did accrue due to the lockdowns and school closures? He was actually being prophetic, almost a Covid whisperer, and issued urgent warnings that to this day remain largely unheeded.

There was also a further media attack on Atlas in early 2021 as well as others such as Richard Epstein and Victor Davis Hanson as a means to delegitimize them for their various positions on Covid-19 issues, again by Stanford’s own faculty. Focusing on Atlas, these attackers seeking to malign his name and character continued baseless straw-man arguments and gross distortions of his statements and policy positions. These Stanford academics were using derogatory claims and no evidence to support their writing, trying desperately to delegitimize Atlas and destroy his name and career. Similarly, 105 Stanford medical and health-policy faculty members published a punishing letter claiming Atlas engaged in “deliberate misrepresentations of the ‘established science’ surrounding Covid-19 that ‘will lead to immense avoidable harm.’” Brazenly, in claiming that he misrepresented scientific facts as if signaling that they were not even obliged to, these 105 letter writers failed to cite any publications of statements by Dr. Atlas that could support and underpin their attacks and claims.

A very recent veiled attack on Atlas that merits mention in a bit more detail comes from Noah Carl when he wrote “Atlas arguably has overstated the case against social distancing.” Such statements by Carl are factually incorrect and are meant to mislead and are very duplicitous when you examine the actual record and statements by Atlas. Atlas’s position has always been that we cannot treat Covid at all costs for it “is severely restricting other medical care and instilling fear in the public, creating a massive health disaster, separate from a potential world poverty crisis with almost incalculable consequences.”

Dr. Atlas’s focus has always been i) protect the high-risk group with an unprecedented focus – with highly detailed, real-time monitoring; prioritized, intensive testing of nursing home staff and residents; proactive warnings to the highest-risk elderly in regions of increasing infection activity; massive extra resources, including point-of-care testing in all nursing homes, personal protective equipment, infection control training, and rapid mobilization of CDC strike teams for surge testing as needed; an adoption of the highest standards of hygiene and distancing ii) careful monitoring of hospitals and ICUs in all counties and states with precision to prevent overcrowding – and rapidly increase capacity in those few hospitals needing personnel, beds, PPE and other supplies if required and iii) leveraging resources to guide businesses, transportation, and schools to safely reopen and remain open, understanding harms of extending the lockdown are severe.

For example, and to evidence of how misguided the attack and smear by Carl was, in The HillAtlas wrote “[…] let’s finally focus on protection for the most vulnerable — that means nursing home patients, who are already living under controlled access. This would include strictly regulating all who enter and care for nursing home members by requiring testing and protective masks for all who interact with these highly vulnerable people. No Covid-19-positive patient can resume residence until definitively cleared by testing. We should issue rational guidelines advising the highest standards of hygiene and sanitation and appropriate social distancing while interacting with elderly friends and family members at risk, including those with diabetes, obesity, and other chronic conditions.”

Now, where in this written piece by Dr. Atlas (all of Dr. Atlas’s statements essentially surround what is stated above) is there any indication that he does not agree with social distancing or misrepresents the case for social distancing or has a position that is threatening or harmful to the public? It is clear from our reading of his statements, whether you take them verbatim or infer meanings, that Dr. Atlas advocates for strong mitigation measures, that include extra enhanced sanitization, social distancing, masks as needed, limitations on group gatherings, testing, and an acute focus in high-risk groups, and other increased protections so as to limit the spread and damage from the coronavirus.

Similarly, an early contrarian being Nobel Prize winner Dr. Michael Levitt, who was a critic of societal lockdowns, became disinvited from his appearance and keynote talk at a biosystems conference. Dr. Levitt was advised that there are “too many calls by other speakers threatening to quit if you were there. They all complained about your Covid claims.” Dr. Levitt has shared the experience via Twitter claiming a “New Dark Age Cometh.”

Another example of the irrational woke cancel culture mob attacking an academic expert comes via the recent announcement by Swedish scientist Dr. Jonas F Ludvigsson that he was quitting his work on Covid-19 due to an onslaught of threats from people who disagreed with his research findings. The reaction has been venomous due to his publication in the NEJM that there were zero deaths from Covid-19 in Swedish children during the examination period, and relatively few children in Sweden became ill during the first wave of the pandemic (of 1.95 million Swedish children under 16 years of age).

Dr. Kulvinder Gill, who is an Ontario pediatric doctor (co-founder of the advocacy group Concerned Ontario Doctors), also received the wrath of the media, the social media, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Canada (as well as the Ontario Medical Association) for questioning the effectiveness of prolonged lockdowns (para there was “absolutely no medical or scientific reason for this prolonged, harmful and illogical lockdown”) and discussing the merits of T-cell immunity and early treatment for higher-risk patients using established antivirals that had a safe and effective track record. It is not difficult to appreciate the specter of racism, discrimination, and bullying levied upon Dr. Gill, who has now taken legal action for the extensive and vile defamations by the media and academic and medical colleagues.

Let us also consider the sordid attacks on the epidemiologists and scientists who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration (leads being Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff) which sought to address the serious concerns surrounding Covid-19 lockdown policies (disastrous physical and mental health impacts) by outlining an approach that was more of a ‘Focused Protection.’ The declaration states as its core thesis that “Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice…” Dr. Gupta has remarked that the attacks on her have been very vicious with people calling her evil and Dr. Rupert Beale who is a group lead at the Francis Crick Institute stated with regards to the Declaration that “What everyone really thinks is, ‘this is all f***ing stupid.’” Toby Young at The Spectator wrote “So why haven’t you heard of it (Great Barrington Declaration)? The short answer is there’s been a well-orchestrated attempt to suppress and discredit it.”

Very similar attacks on the reputation of academics and experts come via a highly credentialed group of clinicians and scientists seeking to advocate for the use of early outpatient therapy (sequenced and combined anti-virals, corticosteroids, and antiplatelets/antithrombotics) in high-risk Covid virus-positive patients who are symptomatic. This approach seeks to stop the viral replication and progression of disease sequelae before the patient/resident worsens and the risk of hospitalization and death escalates. The smears and attacks on the reputation of such highly skilled physicians seeking to minimize Covid-19 hospitalization and death took a turn for the worse when at a Senate hearing (chaired by Senator Ron Johnson) on Covid-19 outpatient treatment, Dr. Harvey Risch (Yale Professor and clinician), Dr. Peter McCullough (Baylor University and clinician), and Dr. George Fareed (clinician and Professor), along with Senator Johnson, were referred to as the ‘snake-oil salesmen of the Senate.’

This presentation of the attacks on Covid-19 contrarian voices can go on and on. What do we have here? We have a callous situation of experts who are guilty of nothing other than stepping up to help reduce the suffering of their populations and save lives in this Covid-19 emergency. People who were asked to serve for the public good and made the decision to. Make no mistake, they will not be the only ones burnt at the stake of the woke mob and this is very urgent and scandalous for very smart people with substantial contributions, and pedigree are being silenced. These high-quality selfless and generous academics and experts from the US, Canada, and the UK (and elsewhere) are being maliciously attacked in the media and it comes at great peril to their safety, their names, their characters, and careers. This has to be stopped, for the chilling effect can have a devastating impact on free speech and the sharing and exchange of needed high-level, high-quality technical thinking and expertise when it is needed most.

Perhaps Ole Petter Ottersen, who is the president of the Karolinska Institute, gives us the needed road map to deal with this shameful and disgraceful period and captures the situation best by saying

A tough debate and a diversity of opinions based on facts and evidence are necessary elements of science and public discourse, but hateful and scornful accusations and personal attacks cannot be tolerated. We already see that researchers retreat from the public debate after being threatened or harassed, and in my own institution a leading researcher just decided to give up his covid-19 research for the same reason […] the coronavirus did not come with a handbook […] In a situation with so many unknowns it is more important than ever that opinions are voiced and experts heard, even if their opinions run counter to current policies.

No example is befitting enough to show the hubris, the arrogance, the duplicity, the disrespect and disregard for other expert persons seeking to help in this crisis than when Dr. Ashish Jha of Brown University informed a Senate hearing in which he was opposed to early treatment, that he had not treated a single Covid-19 patient while using his Senate testimony to question and tacitly discredit the testimony of the early outpatient treatment advocates who had actually treated thousands of Covid-19 patients and used the treatments successfully. Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard’s Medical School has recently commented on the present Covid-19 scientific and research environment censoring by stating, “After 300 years, the Age of Enlightenment has ended.” Sadly, he is very apropos. Perhaps Atlas and colleagues may have indeed had the last word in their response to recent attacks by Stanford by raising legitimate questions on Stanford’s dramatic decline in the rankings on free speech leaving them to ask “Does the wind of freedom still blow at Stanford? Or is it the stale breath of ideological conformism and intimidation that we detect?”

Chastising scientists and medical researchers whose thinking is against mainstream media is deplorable and it stunts a more rich and meaningful dialogue of the means to combat this pandemic. This is especially so for our young people in schools and universities. They are looking on and it is essential for students to hear and consider ideas from many sources, especially the ideas they may not agree with. This is how we learn to think critically. What do you think they must be thinking when they witness this destructive culture against contrarian viewpoints?

Science cannot advance without scientific dialogue on the merits of emerging research and treatment options. The lack of openness in fueling evidence-based conversations results in one very tragic consequence for the public – sound research that could be informative and contribute to the well-being of Americans during this pandemic is silenced. Let’s face it, the benefits of these societal restrictions have been totally exaggerated and the harms to our societies and children have been very severe (the harms to children, the undiagnosed illness that will result in excess mortality in years to come, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation in our young people, drug overdoses and suicides due to the lockdown policies, the crushing isolation due to the lockdowns, psychological harmsdomestic and child abuse, sexual abuse of childrenloss of jobs and businesses and the devastating impact, and the massive numbers of deaths that are coming from the lockdowns that will impact heavily on women and minorities.

The impact is particularly gut-wrenching and brutal for the impoverished among us, and especially so for our poorer children. We have not seen the real impact of this pandemic yet, but it is to come and it will be far-reaching for years and decades to come and it is the reason why pandemic experts (Henderson and Inglesby, etc.) have never advocated for such draconian lockdown steps in the face of a pandemic. They understood what the catastrophic result would be. We must never forget this and we desperately need alternative voices now to get us out of this catastrophic mess our governments, their expert advisors, and media medical advisors seem incapable of doing.

I end by the words of the esteemed Professor Jonathan Turley and ask Stanford to pay close attention to these words given the next move is theirs in righting this vicious onslaught: “Faculty have largely stayed silent as campaigns target these professors and teachers. While some may relish such cleansing of schools of opposing voices, many are likely intimidated by such campaigns and do not want to be the next targeted by such groups. We have often defended the free speech rights of faculty on the left who have made hateful comments about whites, males, and conservatives. Yet, there is an eerie silence when conservatives are targeted for their own views. Sweden has shown how this is a global issue but that the response outside of the United States has been markedly different.”

The post The Brutal Attack on Scientific Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
control follow orders Force Genocide government is slavery Headline News Hurricane Katrina Intelwars killing MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Obey power retired army general ruling class Russel honore slaves stole guns Theft Violence wake up

General Recommends “Quick Reaction Troops” In DC To Protect The Ruling Class From The Slaves

A United States military general, who was appointed by the ruling class, is recommending “quick reaction troop” in Washinton D.C. to protect against the slave uprising.  It sure appears that the powers that believe they own everyone are starting to worry that people no longer need them and are no longer willing to be slaves.

The retired Army general appointed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to lead a security study after the January 6 Capitol riot has called for setting up a quick-reaction force to permanently stand ready for threats against the government, according to a report from RT. Meaning any uprising from the “governed” or “the controlled” or the slave lass will not be tolerated by the masters.

Now, are we beginning to understand that government is slavery? It literally doesn’t matter if it’s a republic or a democracy or a socialist dictatorship. None of us should ever be owned by anyone else. The government knows it, and enough of the public must be figuring it out if retired US Army Lt. General Russel Honore says those who desire their freedom are the problem to be dealt with.

The strategy would permanently militarize the nation’s capital with an active-duty force dedicated full-time to responding to security emergencies in Washington’s government district. Honore, who previously said that US Capitol Police (USCP) may have been “complicit” in the riot, also called for hiring more than 1,100 additional officers for the department, including filling 233 open positions.

Many of the new hires would be intelligence analysts who would monitor security threats against the Capitol. Honore also wants the USCP to create a force of horse-mounted officers to help control crowds, as well as expanding its unit of bomb-sniffing dogs. Other recommendations include speeding the decision-making process for deploying the national guard; beefing up security-monitoring systems; requiring background checks of Capitol identification holders to reduce “insider threats”; establishing more screening portals to access the complex; and creating dedicated riot platoons who can be called on whenever Congress is in session. Members of Congress also would be given beefed-up security for travel, their home offices and their residences. -RT

Honore is best known for his role in leading the National Guard response in New Orleans after the city was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. His troops were involved in confiscating guns (stealing property) from residents after New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass III declared that only law enforcement officers would be allowed to have firearms amid the violent, post-storm chaos in the city.

Wake up if you haven’t yet. If anyone says they have a higher claim over your life and property than you do if any says they have the right to “make laws” that you are forced to obey or they can physically harm you or steal your property, you are a slave. We all are slaves. The ruling class is fortifying their defenses against us, which means enough of us have figured it out. The next step is massive peaceful disobedience of the government, the protection of each other against them.

The post General Recommends “Quick Reaction Troops” In DC To Protect The Ruling Class From The Slaves first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Barack Obama Bruce Springsteen Intelwars Physical attack podcast racial slur Racism accusation Violence

Obama says he punched out a friend in school, breaking his nose, after being called a racial slur

Former President Barack Obama said that back in the day when he was in school he punched out a friend — breaking the kid’s nose — after he called Obama a racial slur.

What are the details?

The revelation was part of the second episode of “Renegades: Born in the USA,” the podcast Obama launched with singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen in which the pair take on socio-political issues. The episode featured a racism discussion, and Obama notably blamed the “politics of white resistance and resentment” as one reason why he didn’t push for reparations while he was in office.

Obama also noted that racism can be birthed from one’s fear that “I’m insignificant and not important. And [being racist] is the thing that’s going to give me some importance,” the Huffington Post said.

Then he got personal, recalling a moment from his time in school in Hawaii when a friend called him a “c**n,” the outlet noted.

“It’s one of those things that where he might not even know what a c**n was — what he knew was, ‘I can hurt you by saying this,'” Obama recalled, according to the Post. “And I remember I popped him in the face and broke his nose, and we were in the locker room. … And he said, ‘Why’d you do that?’ And I explained to him, ‘Don’t you ever call me something like that.'”

According to The Hill, Obama chuckled retelling the tale — and Springsteen offered kudos for his physical response: “Well done.”

The Hill added that it’s believed to be the first time Obama publicly discussed the incident.

During the podcast, Obama also said that uttering racial slurs comes down to “an assertion of status over the other,” The Hill reported.

“‘I may be poor. I may be ignorant. I may be mean. I may be ugly. I may not like myself. I may be unhappy. But you know what I’m not?'” Obama said to Springsteen, according to the Hill. “‘I’m not you.'”

Share
Categories
airstrike attacks bombing critics escalation government is slavery Headline News HYPOCRISY immoral infrastructure Intelwars Iran backed militia murderers New Normal political parasite SYRIA Violence wake up war hawks war machine war mongering war mongers WW3

The U.S. Is Now An Immoral War Machine: Biden Orders New Strikes On Syria

President Joe Biden drew praise from warmongering murderous hawks and accusations of hypocrisy from critics after he authorized a reprisal airstrike on Syria. Biden claimed that by bombing “Iran-backed militia” infrastructure, he is deescalating tensions.

When did bombing others ever result in a “de-escalation?” Here’s the “new normal” we should be worried about…

According to a report by RT, the Biden administration, which has publicly stated its intention to return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and back away from its predecessor’s war-mongering approach, has been panned for seemingly following in Donald Trump’s footsteps on Thursday with an airstrike on Syria.

It does appear that at least some Americans are finally taking a moral stance against war and figuring out it doesn’t matter which puppet sits on the throne. They are all the same.  People online were quick to remind Biden and his staffers of previous statements denouncing such incursions as dangerous escalations that encroach on Syrian sovereignty.

Online sleuths dug up a tweet by Biden’s current spokesperson Jen Psaki, denouncing the Trump administration’s missile strike on Syria in April 2017 as illegal. “Also what is the legal authority for strikes? Assad is a brutal dictator. But Syria is a sovereign country,” Psaki tweeted at the time.

The Pentagon said that the attack was launched at 6 pm eastern time on Biden’s command, and resulted in the destruction of “multiple facilities” believed to be run by Iranian-backed militias in eastern Syria. The Pentagon spun the assault as a“defensive precision strike,” saying it was in retaliation to rocket attacks on the US and coalition troops in Iraq.

“Defensive?” Does anything about initiating an attack defensive? We live in crazy land.

Stay prepared.  War looks like it is still on the table and coupled with all of the other issues the United States is facing under the brutal dictatorship of the ruling and their invented problems.  Stay alert and know what’s going on, not just in your neck of the woods, but globally too.

The post The U.S. Is Now An Immoral War Machine: Biden Orders New Strikes On Syria first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish government democracy is mob rule Headline News hired enforcers Indoctrination Intelwars killing master Murder no authority no freedom no liberty no life overnment is slavery Police State ruling class servitude slaves stand up Theft tyranny United States Violence wake up

Machinery of Death: When the Government Acts as Judge, Jury and Executioner

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute. 

“Police fail to grasp that they are public servants for peace. They should provide a civil service, to enforce the laws equally, without bias and with discretion. They must understand that they do not have immunity or special privileges and — most importantly — are just responsible for apprehending suspects, and should not act as judge, jury and executioner, which too many of them truly believe themselves to be.”—Frank Serpico, former police detective who exposed corruption within the NYPD

The government should not be in the business of killing its citizens.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury, and executioner over a populace that has been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence.

That the death penalty was recently abolished in Virginia is just the tip of the iceberg.

While any effort to scale back the government’s haphazard application of the death penalty—meted out as a punishment, a threat, and a chilling glimpse into the government’s quest for ultimate dominion over its constituents—is a welcome one, capital punishment remains a very small part of the American police state’s machinery of death.

Yet it’s not enough to declare a moratorium on federal and state death penalty executions.

What we need is a moratorium on federal and state violence in all their varied forms (on police shootings of unarmed citizens, innocent civilians killed by the nation’s endless wars abroad, unknowing victims of secret government experiments, politicians whose profit-over-principle priorities leave Americans vulnerable to predatory tactics, etc.), because as long as government-sanctioned murder and mayhem continue unabated, the right to life affirmed by the nation’s founders in the Declaration of Independence remains unattainable.

The danger is real.

Everything about the way the government operates today (imperial, unaccountable, and manifestly corrupt) flies in the face of what the founders sought to bring about: a representative government that exists to protect and preserve life, liberty, property, and happiness of its people.

Police violence is but one aspect of the government violence dispensed without restraint or respect for the rights of the people, but it is widespread.

The casualties are legion.

At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.

Unfortunately, police—trained in the worst-case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.

Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers. (People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.) If you’re black and disabled, you’re even more vulnerable.

For example, California police sent out to deal with a 30-year-old Navy veteran experiencing a mental health crisis reportedly knelt on the man’s neck for nearly five minutes until he stopped breathing. Angelo Quinto died days later. The circumstances are unnervingly similar to the death sentence meted out to George Floyd, who died after Minneapolis police officers knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes.

In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backward away from them. Now, this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.

In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.

In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through the second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.

In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.

In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed, and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.

This is what happens when you empower the police to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s.

Suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.

And then you have U.S. Marshals—the federal government’s de facto national police force—who may be even more violent and unaccountable.

“One reason for the high level of violence,” according to an in-depth investigation by The Marshall Project, USA TODAY and the Arizona Republic: “The Marshals Service’s rules are looser than those of many major police departments. Marshals are not required to try to de-escalate situations or exhaust other remedies before using lethal force. And marshals are allowed to fire into cars. Though body cameras have become routine in major police departments, marshals do not wear them.”

Marshal task forces, which are made up of local law enforcement officers who get deputized as federal agents but are not necessarily given any special training, are also shielded from prosecution by the Justice Department.

Look more closely and you may find that many of the same cops who serve on marshal task forces also serve on local SWAT teams.

For instance, 23-year-old Casey Goodson was shot and killed outside his family home in Columbus, Ohio by a deputy police officer who also happened to be a member of a marshal task force and the local SWAT team. Although the cop claimed to have shot Goodson in the back for waving a gun while driving, that police account conflicts with other accounts, which suggest Goodson was shot on the doorstep while holding a bag of sandwiches. Goodson was not a target of a police investigation.

Sariah Lane, 17 years old, was killed on her way to the grocery when an Arizona cop, also working as a marshal task force member, fired into a Toyota Corolla in which she and her boyfriend were passengers. Taskforce members, out to get the driver of the car for violating his parole, used an unmarked car to ram the Corolla in a parking lot, boxed it in with other unmarked cars, and then started firing into the car. Lane was shot in the back of the head with a hollow-point bullet.

Lane’s alleged killer, Detective Michael Pezzelle, trains police officers around the country to “be polite, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Talk about a recipe for disaster: take poorly trained cops, deputize them as federal marshals, grant them immunity from prosecution, and authorize them to use deadly force to kill someone who poses an “imminent danger.”

To that noxious stew add the government’s interest in adopting domestic terrorism legislation to “better monitor and regulate the environments in which extremist ideologies proliferate” and the Biden administration’s pivot to have FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) assist states and cities in their fight against domestic extremism.

Not to be outdone, the Department of Homeland Security is also considering ramping up its initiatives to combat domestic terrorism by expanding training, providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions for threat assessment investigations, and developing strategies to combat the influence of false online narratives.

Translation: the government is about to rapidly expand its policing efforts to focus on pre-crime and thought crimes.

Given the government’s tendency to manipulate labels to suit their purposes (case in point: consider how interchangeably the government uses the terms terrorist, extremist and anti-government), that could easily put a target on the back of any American who dares to challenge the government’s agenda or hold it accountable to the rule of law.

This is how “we the people” become enemies of the state.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought, or by association.

Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state, and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

We’re playing against a stacked deck.

As journalist Sharyl Attkisson observed, “What’s been most striking to me is just how one-sided the rules are when Americans take on their own government…. It has been dismaying to learn the extent to which rules and laws shield the government from accountability for its abuses—or even lawbreaking…. It’s been a long and frightening lesson…. The rules seem rigged to protect government lawlessness, and the playing field is uneven. Too many processes favor the government. The deck is still stacked.

Because the system is rigged—because there are no real consequences for agents of the police state who inflict violence on the American people—and because “we the people” are at the mercy of a government that has almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they are supposed to “serve and protect”—Americans will continue to die at the hands of a government that sees itself as judge, jury, and executioner.

Something has to give. Something has to change.

What remains to be seen, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is whether any of that change will be for the better.

The post Machinery of Death: When the Government Acts as Judge, Jury and Executioner first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
cops cops are the teeth of the slave state enforcers feared for life government is slavery Hannah fizer Headline News if they were good they wouldn't be cops immoral job Intelwars John Fizer killed Lawsuit left vs. rrrrrrrrr liars Masters murdered murderers police officers Prosecutor shot slaves speeding tax cattle the system is a joke thin blue line Traffic stop Violence wake up wrongful death

WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article will be upsetting for those on the right or “conservatives” still stuck in the left vs. right paradigm lie which the Matrix is built around. 

Last June, family and friends of Hannah Fizer, 25, were shocked to learn that their beloved daughter and friend had been killed during a stop over an alleged speeding violation. Then, four months later, they learned there would be no justice and the officer who killed the unarmed woman as she sat in her vehicle — was back on the job.

Now, Fizer’s father, John Fizer, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Pettis County this week seeking damages against Pettis County Deputy Jordan Schutte. The lawsuit argues the shooting was unjustified, excessive use of force and that Schutte did not follow several standard law enforcement protocols during the stop. When watching the video, it is entirely clear.

In October, the Pettis County prosecutor claimed that the officer shooting an unarmed woman during a traffic stop — dumping five rounds into her as she sat in her car — did not violate any policies. The officer “feared for his life.”

“Schutte had the ability and responsibility to prevent the use of deadly force against Ms. Fizer but failed to do so,” the lawsuit reads. “His actions contributed to Ms. Fizer’s avoidable death.”

On that fateful night on June 13, Fizer was on her way to work when she was targeted for extortion by the deputy. Just six minutes after the stop began, Fizer would have five bullet holes in her, still sitting in her car.

After killing Fizer, the deputy would claim the woman — who never made a violent threat in her life — had a gun and threatened to kill him. However, investigators found no such gun and it appears the only thing she was holding was her cellphone after letting the officer know that she was filming the stop.

Fizer’s family disputes the claims of their daughter threatening to shoot the deputy and their dispute is held up by the fact that Fizer was unarmed. Another ominous detail to the killing of Fizer was the fact that she was filming the stop and her phone was found on the floorboard of her Hyundai, according to a search warrant, but no video has ever been released.

Several months after her death, surveillance footage from a nearby business was released, showing the deputy attempt to open her car door before positioning himself in front of her car and dumping 5 rounds into her. Had he really believed she had a gun, he would have likely taken cover or moved out of the way. Instead, he stayed standing straight up and calmly began shooting into Fizer’s car.

The attorneys for the family agree, noting in the lawsuit that Schutte drew his firearm and fired repeated shots at Hannah Fizer at point-blank range without first moving or attempting to move to a position of better safety or cover while giving her commands or calling for support and backup.

“There is no objectively reasonable basis on which to conclude it was acceptable, lawful, and not excessive for Schutte to purposefully position himself toward the front of Hannah Fizer’s vehicle and discharge his firearm at her only minutes into a traffic stop without ever attempting to move to a place of greater safety or follow de-escalation techniques,” the lawsuit states.

 

Fizer’s father believes Fizer was simply holding her cell phone and dropped it, which caused the coward cop to dump five rounds into his daughter. As the cellphone was the only thing found in the car, this is the most likely scenario.

In his statement after the shooting, Schutte claimed Fizer refused to identify herself and that, because she refused to, he told her to step out of the car because he was going to arrest her for not identifying herself.

However, as FOX 4 pointed out, at the time of the incident, nowhere in the record of the radio traffic did Schutte report to radio dispatch that he was going to arrest her for refusing to identify herself. Instead, he can be heard on the radio telling dispatch she was more worried about recording him than giving him her identification.

Furthermore, the radio traffic reveals Hannah Fizer did in fact identify herself, as she can be heard on the audio recording clearly saying her name, “Hannah Fizer,” at a volume the Pettis County deputy would have been able to hear.

Despite prosecutors admitting the shooting was “avoidable” they cleared Schutte in Fizer’s death.

Special prosecutor Stephen P. Sokoloff wrote in his conclusion that “the shooting, albeit possibly avoidable, was justifiable under current Missouri criminal law” after claiming surveillance footage from the restaurant showed Fizer reach down to the floorboard. Apparently, reaching down is a crime punishable by summary execution on the spot.

“The evidence indicates that the deceased, who had been stopped for multiple traffic violations and who had refused to provide any information to the officer, had advised him that she was recording him, and then shortly thereafter, that she had a gun and was going to shoot him,” Sokoloff wrote in his statement. “At the time the officer discharged his weapon, she had reached down into the floorboard of the car and raised up towards him. Based on the information and circumstances available to the officer during the event, it cannot be said that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired.”

This statement rings hollow given the facts of the case, and the new sheriff as well as the old have expressed their concerns over Fizer’s death. As of Dec. 31, 2020, Shutte is no longer employed by the department.

Adding to the tragic nature of this summary execution over a speeding allegation is the fact that Fizer actually attended the Sedalia Police Department’s academy in 2016, according to the NY Times. So she was well trained in how to handle a stop, likely the reason she began filming in the first place. According to friends and family, after attending the academy, she quickly decided that she did not want to be a cop, but would often talk about becoming a parole officer to help people get back on their feet.

Before Fizer left for work that evening, the Times reports that she had spent the last day of her life splashing around in a kiddie pool with her best friend, Taylor Browder, and Browder’s young children, talking about life and her future in Sedalia — a future, thanks to an unidentified deputy, that no longer exists….

The post WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
cops cops are the teeth of the slave state enforcers feared for life government is slavery Hannah fizer Headline News if they were good they wouldn't be cops immoral job Intelwars John Fizer killed Lawsuit left vs. rrrrrrrrr liars Masters murdered murderers police officers Prosecutor shot slaves speeding tax cattle the system is a joke thin blue line Traffic stop Violence wake up wrongful death

WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article will be upsetting for those on the right or “conservatives” still stuck in the left vs. right paradigm lie which the Matrix is built around. 

Last June, family and friends of Hannah Fizer, 25, were shocked to learn that their beloved daughter and friend had been killed during a stop over an alleged speeding violation. Then, four months later, they learned there would be no justice and the officer who killed the unarmed woman as she sat in her vehicle — was back on the job.

Now, Fizer’s father, John Fizer, filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Pettis County this week seeking damages against Pettis County Deputy Jordan Schutte. The lawsuit argues the shooting was unjustified, excessive use of force and that Schutte did not follow several standard law enforcement protocols during the stop. When watching the video, it is entirely clear.

In October, the Pettis County prosecutor claimed that the officer shooting an unarmed woman during a traffic stop — dumping five rounds into her as she sat in her car — did not violate any policies. The officer “feared for his life.”

“Schutte had the ability and responsibility to prevent the use of deadly force against Ms. Fizer but failed to do so,” the lawsuit reads. “His actions contributed to Ms. Fizer’s avoidable death.”

On that fateful night on June 13, Fizer was on her way to work when she was targeted for extortion by the deputy. Just six minutes after the stop began, Fizer would have five bullet holes in her, still sitting in her car.

After killing Fizer, the deputy would claim the woman — who never made a violent threat in her life — had a gun and threatened to kill him. However, investigators found no such gun and it appears the only thing she was holding was her cellphone after letting the officer know that she was filming the stop.

Fizer’s family disputes the claims of their daughter threatening to shoot the deputy and their dispute is held up by the fact that Fizer was unarmed. Another ominous detail to the killing of Fizer was the fact that she was filming the stop and her phone was found on the floorboard of her Hyundai, according to a search warrant, but no video has ever been released.

Several months after her death, surveillance footage from a nearby business was released, showing the deputy attempt to open her car door before positioning himself in front of her car and dumping 5 rounds into her. Had he really believed she had a gun, he would have likely taken cover or moved out of the way. Instead, he stayed standing straight up and calmly began shooting into Fizer’s car.

The attorneys for the family agree, noting in the lawsuit that Schutte drew his firearm and fired repeated shots at Hannah Fizer at point-blank range without first moving or attempting to move to a position of better safety or cover while giving her commands or calling for support and backup.

“There is no objectively reasonable basis on which to conclude it was acceptable, lawful, and not excessive for Schutte to purposefully position himself toward the front of Hannah Fizer’s vehicle and discharge his firearm at her only minutes into a traffic stop without ever attempting to move to a place of greater safety or follow de-escalation techniques,” the lawsuit states.

 

Fizer’s father believes Fizer was simply holding her cell phone and dropped it, which caused the coward cop to dump five rounds into his daughter. As the cellphone was the only thing found in the car, this is the most likely scenario.

In his statement after the shooting, Schutte claimed Fizer refused to identify herself and that, because she refused to, he told her to step out of the car because he was going to arrest her for not identifying herself.

However, as FOX 4 pointed out, at the time of the incident, nowhere in the record of the radio traffic did Schutte report to radio dispatch that he was going to arrest her for refusing to identify herself. Instead, he can be heard on the radio telling dispatch she was more worried about recording him than giving him her identification.

Furthermore, the radio traffic reveals Hannah Fizer did in fact identify herself, as she can be heard on the audio recording clearly saying her name, “Hannah Fizer,” at a volume the Pettis County deputy would have been able to hear.

Despite prosecutors admitting the shooting was “avoidable” they cleared Schutte in Fizer’s death.

Special prosecutor Stephen P. Sokoloff wrote in his conclusion that “the shooting, albeit possibly avoidable, was justifiable under current Missouri criminal law” after claiming surveillance footage from the restaurant showed Fizer reach down to the floorboard. Apparently, reaching down is a crime punishable by summary execution on the spot.

“The evidence indicates that the deceased, who had been stopped for multiple traffic violations and who had refused to provide any information to the officer, had advised him that she was recording him, and then shortly thereafter, that she had a gun and was going to shoot him,” Sokoloff wrote in his statement. “At the time the officer discharged his weapon, she had reached down into the floorboard of the car and raised up towards him. Based on the information and circumstances available to the officer during the event, it cannot be said that the officer did not have a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired.”

This statement rings hollow given the facts of the case, and the new sheriff as well as the old have expressed their concerns over Fizer’s death. As of Dec. 31, 2020, Shutte is no longer employed by the department.

Adding to the tragic nature of this summary execution over a speeding allegation is the fact that Fizer actually attended the Sedalia Police Department’s academy in 2016, according to the NY Times. So she was well trained in how to handle a stop, likely the reason she began filming in the first place. According to friends and family, after attending the academy, she quickly decided that she did not want to be a cop, but would often talk about becoming a parole officer to help people get back on their feet.

Before Fizer left for work that evening, the Times reports that she had spent the last day of her life splashing around in a kiddie pool with her best friend, Taylor Browder, and Browder’s young children, talking about life and her future in Sedalia — a future, thanks to an unidentified deputy, that no longer exists….

The post WATCH: Cop Executes Unarmed Woman On Her Way to Work Over a Speeding Ticket first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Donald Trump Intelwars Maxine Waters MSNBC Trump Impeachment Violence Violent rhetoric

Maxine Waters claims she didn’t encourage violence against Trump supporters, but here’s what she said in 2018

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.) claimed over the weekend that she did not use inflammatory rhetoric against Trump supporters or encourage violence against them during Trump’s presidency.

What did Waters say during Trump’s presidency?

Waters, chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, came under fire in 2018 after she encouraged her supporters to confront supporters of then-President Donald Trump and members of his Cabinet.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she said.

Waters later said in an interview on MSNBC that Trump’s defenders would not be safe from being confronted over their support of Trump.

“They are not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they are not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they are not going to be able to shop in a department store. The people are going to turn on them, they are gonna protest, they are gonna absolutely harass them,” Waters said at the time.

At the time, Democrats were angry at Trump over his “zero tolerance” immigration policy. Less than a week before Waters’ comments, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was run out of a restaurant.

What is Waters saying now?

Speaking with MSNBC host Ali Velshi on Sunday, Waters denied ever using inflammatory language suggesting violence against Trump’s supporters.

“As a matter of fact, if you look at the words that I used, the strongest thing I said was tell them they’re not welcome,” Waters claimed. “[I said], ‘Talk to them. Tell them they’re not welcome.’ I didn’t say, ‘Go and fight.’ I didn’t say anybody was going to have any violence. And so they can’t make that stick.”

By contrast, Waters claimed that Trump was determined “to destroy our democracy if he could not be president.” She claimed he “sent” the rioters into the Capitol.

“Nothing equals that,” Waters said, adding that Republicans should distance themselves from Trump or they “will be owned by this dishonorable human being.”

Why is she defending herself now?

Trump’s lead impeachment attorney, Bruce Castor, confirmed last week that he will use “dueling video” to combat evidence that Trump’s rhetoric about election integrity incited the violence at the Capitol.

Castor’s confirmation came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked if he would use video of Waters’ 2018 remarks during Trump’s Senate trial, which begins on Tuesday.

“I think you can count on that,” Castor said.

According to Castor, Democrats are guilty of essentially the same thing they say Trump should be convicted in the Senate over.

There’s an awful lot of a tape of cities burning and courthouses being attacked and federal agents being assaulted by rioters in the street cheered on by Democrats throughout the country, and many of them in Washington, using really the most inflammatory rhetoric that’s possible to use. And certainly, there would be no suggestion that they did anything to incite any of the actions. Certainly, there wasn’t any anyhow.

But here, when you have the president of the United States give a speech and says you should peacefully make your thinking known to the people in Congress, he’s all of a sudden a villain. So you got to better be careful what you wish for.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) made the same point on Sunday.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” Paul said that if Democrats’ impeachment standard was applied fairly, then Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should also face impeachment.

“If we’re going to criminalize speech, and somehow impeach everybody who says, ‘Go fight to hear your voices heard,’ I mean really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then,” Paul said.

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court and said specifically, ‘Hey Gorsuch, hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind. And you’re going to pay the price,'” Paul continued. “This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court.”

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Cori bush HYPOCRISY Intelwars Riots St. Louis Violence

Democrat Rep. Cori Bush gets slammed for defending ‘very violent’ jail riot, decrying US Capitol riot

Freshman Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (Mo.) was sharply criticized over the weekend after she seemingly defended prisoners who started a riot at the St. Louis County Jail.

What’s the background?

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the riot started early Saturday morning after an angry inmate attacked a guard. City officials blamed a “faulty locking system” that allowed about 115 inmates to escape their cells and participate in the mayhem.

The inmates took control of the jail’s fourth floor and caused widespread damage, “where they set fires, clogged toilets, flooded parts of the floor and caused other damage,” the Post-Dispatch reported.

“These were just very angry, defiant, very violent people that we house at the Justice Center,” the city’s director of public safety, Jimmie Edwards, said. “No one at the Justice Center is housed for a misdemeanor, a municipal offense or a low-level felony. Everybody housed at the Justice Center is housed there because of very serious offenses like assault on police officers and homicide and things of that sort.”

What did Bush say?

In response, Bush seemingly defended the prisoners, empathizing with them by quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“‘A riot is the language of the unheard.’ – Dr. MLK Jr,” Bush began “I want to talk to my constituents in the window. Their lives and their rights must be protected. My team and I are working to ensure that the urgent needs of people who are incarcerated are not ignored.”

Bush, whose congressional district includes St. Louis, also released a statement decrying the conditions of the criminal justice system. The statement called for “full transparency and human rights protections.”

What was the response?

Bush was criticized because, just one month ago, she was condemning riots, the one at the U.S. Capitol that she claimed then-President Donald Trump “incited.”

“Our country deserves better,” Bush tweeted at the time.

In fact, many critics said that Bush was engaging in hypocrisy by seemingly defending one riot while condemning another.

  • “Aren’t they just thugs like the Capitol rioters ? Or were the Capitol rioters the ‘unheard’ also? Which way do you want it ?” one person responded.
  • “Riots are.good again…
    I love how they never post that full MLK quote,” another person
    said.
  • “So does this quote by MLK apply to the January 6 riot?” another person responded.
  • “Riots are great again unless a bunch of whites from the trailer park are doing it, in which case it’s domestic terrorism,” one person said.
  • “Entering the Capitol without permission is terrorism but a prison riot is a peaceful protest,” another person responded.
  • “You support riots @CoriBush? According to the link, “Everybody housed at the Justice Center is housed there because of very serious offenses like assault on police officers and homicide and things of that sort.” How does this fit with your resolution in the #HouseOfHypocrites?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) responded.
  • “‘Riots are socially destructive and self-defeating… So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.’ Dr. MLK Jr. (in the same speech Cori Bush is quoting),” another person noted.

Law enforcement eventually used tear gas to control the riot. St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson said the violence was over by 10 a.m. on Saturday.

Share
Categories
Crime Intelwars Law Enforcement Police Skyrocketing crime Violence Violent america violent leftists

Horowitz: America’s most violent year

We have domestic terrorism in this country, all right. It’s just that it emanates almost exclusively from the left and violent career criminals. When will our focus shift to those people? And if not, what’s the purpose of having law enforcement other than to empower a tyrannical government?

Every last person involved in the Capitol riot will be brought to justice … and then some. But when will the people responsible for the most violent year be brought to justice?

It’s not just the widespread arson, looting, vandalism, and blocking of roads we continue to see from Antifa and Black Lives Matter even now, into 2021. It’s the widespread effects of the lawlessness and deterrent against policing (rather than against criminals) that has led to the sharpest one-year increase in crime in recent history.

Earlier this week, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal revealing some startling crime statistics from 2020:

  • “Murder was up nearly 37% in a sample of 57 large and medium-size cities.” Some cities experienced sharper increases: 95% in Milwaukee, 78% in Louisville, Ky., 74% in Seattle, 72% in Minneapolis, 62% in New Orleans, and 58% in Atlanta, for example.
  • In total, at least 2,000 more Americans were killed in 2020 than in 2019.
  • This year, we witnessed brazen attacks on black children through gang warfare and drive-by shootings. “Fifty-five children were killed in Chicago in 2020, 17 in St. Louis, and 11 in Philadelphia. In South Los Angeles alone, 40 children were shot, some non-lethally, through September.”

Mac Donald points out that most media figures and politicians blame the spike in violence on the stress of the pandemic. To the extent that this is not an indictment of their lockdown policies, Mac Donald observes the obvious fact that crime actually fell for the first few months of the pandemic and only rose at the end of May with the rise of BLM, the rioting, and the attacks on police.

It’s not just the war on cops, but the war on incarceration. Virginia Democrats, for example, are debating SB 1370, a bill that will enable judges to retroactively shorten life sentences for some of the state’s worst murderers. Many county jails have been emptied of their criminals thanks to endless rounds of de-incarceration “reforms.” It’s taking its toll on the streets.

The tragic irony is that as politicians abolish bail, shorten sentences, and drop prosecution of career violent criminals or rioters, the entire force of the federal law enforcement apparatus and some state law enforcements are being harnessed against conservative activists and Trump supporters, even those who did not engage in violence at the Capitol. Thus, we are now confronted with even more street violence as law enforcement stands down against the mayhem staring them in the face and leaves no stone unturned in persecuting Trump supporters.

In lower Manhattan this week, a flash mob ruthlessly beat a man on the street, leaving him bloodied and naked. Do you think for a minute those “youths” will be brought to justice? Do you think law enforcement will use technology to track down and prosecute even those who were in the vicinity of the attack, like they are doing with Capitol Hill?

The reality is that politicians only protect their own. You can beat civilians and destroy private property, because those are not sacred to our government. Then again, even public property, if demolished by the left, is not that sacred. The man who pleaded guilty to burning down the third precinct police station of the Minneapolis PD last May faces, at most, four years in prison before the early release programs likely trim the sentence down further. Hundreds of people were involved in the burning, but no more than four perpetrators will be charged at all. I’m sure the man caught moving Nancy Pelosi’s lectern in the Capitol will serve more time in federal prison.

As the media and government obsessively focus on “right-wing terrorism,” it’s not like the violence they are ignoring is ancient history. It’s still happening. The violence in 2021 looks to be getting even worse. Shootings in south Los Angeles are up 742%. Eleven people have already been killed in Oakland, as compared to just one at the same date in 2020. Antifa continues to riot and block streets with impunity in places like Tacoma, Seattle, and Portland every single day. There is no safety net or backstop to the lawlessness as the entire law enforcement apparatus of the federal government trains its fire on Trump supporters.

Which raises the uncomfortable question: Should conservatives join with the left and support abolishing the police, at least the urban police departments (as opposed to rural sheriffs)? Throw in the FBI and the federal law enforcement agencies while we’re are at it. If ordered liberty is no longer an option on the menu because the government refuses to do its core job and deter crime and violence, why should we have law enforcement around to be used as a blunt instrument against us and as an enforcement for tyranny? Why should we have law enforcement standing at the ready to arrest single moms like Larvita McFarquhar for opening her restaurant in Minnesota as violence pervades the streets of their cities uncontrollably?

What good is law enforcement if the only time they are effective is in enforcing COVID fascism, hampering us from defending ourselves against Antifa, clamping down on the First Amendment, and generally empowering despotic regimes to supplant our Constitution? I’d rather suffer from plain anarchy than a dystopian mix of anarchy for the fringe left and tyranny for the rest of us.

Share
Categories
control COVID-19 Donald Trump elections are selections Executive Orders Force government is slavery Headline News Health Hoax Intelwars Jen psaki Joe Biden liars Mask mandates Masters plandemic power rules ruling class scamdemic slaves Violence voting doesn't matter

Biden Ignores His Own Mask Mandate on First Day: “Bigger Issues to Worry About,” Says WH Press Secretary

This article was originally published by Jon Miltimore at The Foundation for Economic Education. 

*”Rules for thee, and not for me.” -every ruler and master everywhere.

Biden has consistently urged people to “mask up” and is calling on Americans to wear face coverings in public for the next 100 days.

Joe Biden had a busy first day as president, signing 17 executive actions, far more than predecessors Trump, Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton combined.

Among the orders was a mandate that all people on federal property wear masks to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

“[To] protect the Federal workforce and individuals interacting with the Federal workforce, and to ensure the continuity of Government services and activities, on-duty or on-site Federal employees, on-site Federal contractors, and other individuals in Federal buildings and on Federal lands should all wear masks, maintain physical distance, and adhere to other public health measures, as provided in CDC guidelines,” the order stated.

In some ways, the order comes as little surprise. Prior to the November election, Biden had indicated he would require masks on federal property. Meanwhile, Biden has consistently urged people to “mask up” and is calling on Americans to wear face coverings in public for the next 100 days.

Things got awkward quickly, however.

The same day Biden signed his executive order, he and his family were spotted maskless at the Lincoln Memorial—a clear violation of the order he had signed that very morning.

This created an uncomfortable moment for White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who was asked by a reporter why Biden and members of his family were not wearing a mask in compliance with the law.

“He was celebrating an evening of a historic day in our country,” said Psaki, who also rattled off many of the actions the administration was taking to slow the spread of the virus.

The reporter persisted. He asked if Biden, who has repeatedly pointed out the importance of elected officials setting an example, was sending the wrong message to Americans.

“I think the power of his example is also the message he sends by signing 25 executive orders, including almost half of them related to COVID,” Psaki said. “I think we have bigger issues to worry about.”

Psaki’s excuse-making was cringeworthy, particularly the last sentence, which I suspect she wishes she could take back.

But in her defense, there was no good way to answer the question (beyond deflection, or honestly owning up to the misstep). Psaki may have been correct that Biden was “celebrating,” but the order he signed makes no exception for celebrations. She may also be correct that “we have bigger issues to worry about” than masks. In fact, I believe she is.

Masks have become a partisan distraction and a toxic one. Reasonable people can debate their efficacy in reducing the spread of the coronavirus—some evidence suggests they may help, other evidence suggests they may not—but what’s clear is that masks have become symbols.

For some, masks are seen as a tool to shame others, shape consciousness, and force compliance. For others, masks are seen as a symbol of righteousness, a demonstration of morality and selflessness. If you doubt masks have become a moral issue—as well as a device to signal virtue and shame others—consider some of the following. (As well as these videos, which we are not embedding because of profanity.)

*Oh no! We can’t have people talking freely!

There are many things individuals can do to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic, we heard a lot about hand washing, avoiding touching one’s face, and disinfecting surfaces on a daily basis. We don’t hear much about these things anymore, even though health centers stress these as important measures to reduce the chance of infection.

Essentially, masks unleashed the tribalism and division (both politically and ideologically) that lurk beneath America. Studies show you can tell with a high degree of certainty whether someone was a Trump or Biden supporter based on their mask-wearing habits.

Consider the lack of outcry over the fact that Biden violated his own mask mandate hours after signing it. Biden’s actions don’t make him a bad person, of course, despite what many on social media would have you believe.

It does, however, put Biden in the camp with the numerous others we’ve seen during this pandemic who flout the rules they pass for others. This has been a source of frustration for many people throughout the pandemic, and that frustration seems to be growing.

“I mean they put these rules in place … they’re not even following their own rules,” Green Bay Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently observed in an appearance on “The Pat McAfee Show” following a $500,000 donation to the Barstool Fund. “How many people have gotten caught?”

Rodgers is not someone known for being outspoken on controversial issues.

The hypocrisy and unequal treatment matters.

The expansion of the government tends to occur under a basic assumption: that it will result in greater equality. This assumption is flawed, however. The expansion of the state doesn’t vanquish inequality. In fact, it often exacerbates it.

Though politicians promise an egalitarian utopia, the reality is that hierarchy, social climbing, and wealth disparity will exist in any political system. But whereas a free market rewards competence and those who create value, a system dominated by the state will always reward those with proximity to power.

The Soviet Union might have been premised on the idea of equality, but most people didn’t have a Rolls Royce, Mercedes, Cadillac, Lincoln Continental, Monte Carlo, Matra, and Lancia Beta.

Leonid Brezhnev, the general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party and president of the USSR, did.

All of this is to say, Jen Psaki is right. We have far bigger problems than whether Joe Biden is wearing a mask all day.

But one of those problems is the fact that politicians increasingly feel like they can pass orders for others while ignoring those orders themselves.

The post Biden Ignores His Own Mask Mandate on First Day: “Bigger Issues to Worry About,” Says WH Press Secretary first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Antifa Assault burned flags dog and pony show Headline News inauguration Intelwars Joe Biden looting portland Property damage Rioting Seattle Violence

Antifa Wreak Havoc On Seattle & Portland After Biden’s Inaguration

Mere hours after democrat Joe Biden was inaugurated in the pomp and circumstance dog and pony show as the 46th president of the United States, Antifa took to the streets of Portland and Seattle to wreak havoc.  The groups burned flags, looted, and rioted while leaving destruction behind them.

People are upset on all sides right now.  In Seattle, flags were burned in the middle of the street.

Mobs also graffitied the Amazon Go store.

At least two of the rioters were arrested for property damage and assault.

In Portland, over 100 rioters descended on Portland, wreaking havoc and destroying property just a few hours after Biden’s inauguration ceremony. The so-called “J20 Protest” was advertised as an anti-Biden, anti-police event also aimed at supporting indigenous people’s rights, according to local ABC affiliate KATU.

The group rioting in Portland also targeted the Democratic Party of Oregon building for special destruction, breaking windows, spray painting graffiti (including “anarchy” symbols and a “F**k Biden”), and overturning dumpsters. Some held signs with slogans including “We are ungovernable,” “A new world from the ashes,” and “We don’t want Biden – we want revenge.”

The MAGApocalypse predicted by the mainstream media’s talking heads never materialized, however. Portland police told local media they arrested eight people on charges including rioting, reckless burning, possession of a destructive device, and criminal mischief. There were at least two other post-inauguration protests scheduled for Wednesday, according to RT. 

Despite widespread hype about Trump supporters plotting to overtake state capitals on Wednesday, however, law enforcement agencies detailed to the Oregon Capitol building reportedly encountered more journalists than angry conservatives. –RT

Please remain prepared and peaceful. This may be just the beginning. Violence will only expand the government’s power and give the ruling class an excuse to clamp down hard on the slaves. Protest by leaving their system and not participating. Don’t play into their hand by committing violence and destroying private property.

 

The post Antifa Wreak Havoc On Seattle & Portland After Biden’s Inaguration first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
awareness capitol hill credible threats Donald Trump government is slavery Headline News inauguration Intelwars Joe Biden looting mainstream media propaganda MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX military presence official narrative Pentagon political parasites Protestors Riots somethin is comin threat levels tragedy Violence Wars Washington D.C.

NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYED: JANUARY 20TH COMING!

This article was contributed by Portfolio Wealth Global. 

If you thought that the election was dramatic or that the Capitol Hill occurrence was super-intense and historic, then, according to security briefings, we’ve got another thing coming in the days ahead!

If the reports are even close to being accurate, the threat levels, seriousness, and awareness around the inauguration has not been this panicky in many years.

The fact that a sitting president, Donald Trump, is not conforming to a long-lasting tradition of showing up to the inauguration of Joe Biden, is proof-positive that America has changed and that the cracks are huge!

America didn’t always lead the other nations; perhaps in this century, it will again take a backseat to other nations that seem to be less chaotic and more on track towards financial growth and militaristic dominance.

In the coming week, a major challenge that the Pentagon and all other security agencies around the country are facing, is how to ensure that Joe Biden gets sworn in without a political or national tragedy.

Presidents have been under immediate danger, under life-threatening experiences and they’ve even been assassinated before in this country; attempts on their lives are probably more frequent than the media reports, since most must be censored and kept under wraps.

We could assume that at any given time there are credible threats made, and that there are precautions taken at any given moment to maintain peace and order on the domestic front.

DRAMA IN WASHINGTON

There are many things to consider, but the main one is that President Trump never conceded, never gave up on the belief that voter irregularities cheated him from being president for a 2nd term.

Winning an election is one of the most difficult tasks in the world, bar none. Campaigning is nearly impossible, from a physical aspect, for most politicians. They don’t have the tenacity, resolve or the obsession levels required to sacrifice their body for months on end for a single cause.

From the perspective of effort and concentration, it resembles training for the Olympics or going on a space mission. From the perspective of using your voice and facial expressions, it resembles a world tour of a rock or pop star. From the perspective of constantly thinking about public opinion, it resembles being CEO of a large multinational consumer goods company and, then, after you’ve won, the job only begins.

It’s been described as the loneliest job in the world and the stresses of it are so intense, that most former presidents want nothing to do with Washington once they’re out of office.

In that sense, one can understand why Donald Trump, who genuinely feels robbed, can’t reconcile with reality and just proceed with his life.

The same could be said of his most loyal supporters, who are convinced that the other side is acting in the interests of foreign and global forces, not for the sake and benefit of America. Herein lies their justification {in their eyes} for violence and any other measures.

If in their minds, the reasoning behind their actions is for the purpose of saving the United States of America from a sitting president, who is in bed with the Chinese or part of a global agenda to weaken the middle class in America, then they deduce that their actions will later be viewed as heroism.

We are not expressing an opinion on this matter; rather, we are pointing out the sentiment shared by millions of Americans, which, if not addressed, could result in drastic consequences for the country.

There is no doubt that politics is in a state of crisis in America, and throughout the world, for that matter. 2021 will be volatile, but what else is new?

The post NATIONAL GUARD DEPLOYED: JANUARY 20TH COMING! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Canada politicians domination Intelwars Pickup trucks Toxic masculinity Violence

Politician says pickup trucks glorify ‘violence and dominion,’ questions male truck owners’ masculinity — but then gets angry when they question his

A Canadian politician is receiving worldwide attention after he said that “unnecessary trucks” are complicit in the “glorification of violence and domination.”

He also questioned the masculinity of male truck owners, but was clearly taken aback when social media users came to question his own masculinity following the lengthy rant.

What are the details?

Mathew Bond, a North Vancouver, Canada, council member shared a photo of a large pickup truck on social media, which he captioned, “The glorification of violence and domination. #unnecessarytrucks #petromasculinity.”

Bond explained that the truck — a large white pickup with a large plate with a tongue-in-cheek joke reading “Global Warmer” — was dismissive in its treatment of global warming.

It only got better from there

In a later thread, Bond said that owners and operators of such trucks are simply trying to reinforce their masculinity.

“A lot of the replies to this tweet (which Twitter has graciously ran through the quality filter) are reinforcing the point I made,” he shot back. “Wow, never expected to have so many people on this website thinking about my penis (especially dudes). Weird, but thanks? Trucks are necessary in many rural areas. Designing or modifying them to be more dangerous to others than they already are is unnecessary.”

Bond insisted that the trucks — and their owners — are doing nothing more than “glorifying global warming,” a “harmful and disgusting” move.

“The fact is that trucks (all vehicles in fact) are being designed larger and more powerful than they have in the past,” he explained. “Pick your favourite light or mid duty model and compare today’s version to that of your parents (or grandparents if you’re young). The design, specifically the size and heights of the front of the truck, is more dangerous and can cause more harm to others on the road than it used to. Life it up 6″ inches [sic] plus, put a big bull bar on the front, and the affect [sic] is amplified.”

Bond also insisted that his critics are either ignorant, selfish, or preoccupied with the projection of their own masculinity.

“From the replies twitter has shown me, it seems a lot of people haven’t thought about this,” he mused. “Or they have thought about it and don’t care about the impact on other people using the road. Or they’ve thought about it and decided that having a bigger, more powerful truck with modifications that are going to be more harmful to others in a crash is somehow more ‘manly.'”

Bond concluded the lengthy thread by stating that he is personally affronted by those critics who would dare question his masculinity after he questioned their masculinity.

“The mental leap from ‘the message on the truck is harmful, glorifying global warming is violent and the size/mods on this truck make it more dangerous for others on the road’ to ‘Mathew is a d***less, ball-less, spineless, soy latte drinking, city living p***y who’s never done a day of ‘real’ work in his life, sits down to pee, hates all trucks, the hard working people that drive them and wants to control our lives’ actually illustrates the toxicity I was mentioning in the hashtags better than anything I could have done myself,” he railed.

(H/T: The Daily Wire)

Share
Categories
capitol. washington D.C. Censorship corporates rulers Criminals district of corruption Facebook Fascism free speech government is slavery Guy Rosen Headline News human dignity human rights Instagram Intelwars life Masters Monika Bickert no such thing as authority Rally Self-ownership silenced slaves social media giants Stop the steal Technology Violence wake up

Facebook Bans The Phrase “Stop The Steal” Ahead Of Biden’s Inaguration

Facebook is going all-in on their censorship campaign ahead of Joe Biden’s inauguration in 8 days. The social media giant has now banned the phrase “stop the steal” from their platform.

Any content with the blacklisted phrase is being removed from Facebook and Instagram, under the Coordinating Harm policy, the company announced on Monday evening. The vice president for Integrity Guy Rosen and vice president for Global Policy Management Monika Bickert claimed that the phrase was used “by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in DC” and cited “continued attempts to organize events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence,” according to reports by RT. “We’re taking additional steps and using the same teams and technologies we used during the general election to stop misinformation and content that could incite further violence during these next few weeks,” Rosen and Bickert wrote.

In addition to the “indefinite suspension” of President Trump’s account announced on Thursday, Facebook is keeping the temporary ban on all US political advertising and “connecting people with reliable information and high-quality news about the inauguration and the transition process.”

“After the inauguration, our label on posts that attempt to delegitimize the election results will reflect that Joe Biden is the sitting president,” wrote Bickert and Rosen. –RT

For months, social media giants have labeled any post challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election as“disputed” or challenged by their coterie of fact-checkers. This includes posts by Donald Trump that were alleging voter irregularities.  Last Wednesday’s unrest at the Capitol provided Big Tech with a pretext to censor and purge accounts outright, including those of the president himself.

The outright deletion of content before Biden is even inaugurated is an escalation from Facebook’s actions prior to the election, when they “shadowbanned” all mention of a New York Poststory about Biden’s son Hunter and the incriminating emails found on a laptop recovered from a Delaware repair shop. Twitter had locked the Post’s account, but it later emerged that Facebook’s soft censorship turned out to be far more effective. –RT

The clampdown on free speech is here. Once that begins, history has proven that it doesn’t end well.

The post Facebook Bans The Phrase “Stop The Steal” Ahead Of Biden’s Inaguration first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
amazon Apple free speech Intelwars John matze Parler Violence

Apple, Amazon deplatform Parler for not moderating content: ‘Incites violence against others’

Parler, the new social media platform that has been a refuge for Trump supporters amid increased moderation by traditional platforms like Twitter and Facebook, has been suspended by Apple and Amazon.

Apple had threatened on Friday that it would remove Parler from its App Store if the company did not moderate content posted to the platform, which Apple deemed had helped facilitate deadly violence in Washington, D.C., last week.

What did Apple say?

The company removed Parler from the App Store late Saturday, claiming the alternative social media platform did not adequately address its concerns about content moderation.

“We have always supported diverse points of view being represented on the App Store, but there is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity,” Apple told The Hill in a statement. “Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety.”

Apple said Parler’s suspension from the App Store would continue “until they resolve these issues.”

The development is a major blow for the growing platform, which was the top free app in the Apple App Store at the time of its removal. On Friday, Google removed Parler from the Google Play Store over similar concerns. This means Parler is now unavailable for download on the two most widely used smartphone operating systems.

What did Amazon do?

In a surprising move late Saturday, Amazon informed Parler that it would suspend the social media app’s use of Amazon Web Services’ hosting servers.

“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service,” Amazon told Parler in an email, BuzzFeed News reported.

“[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,” the email added. “Because Parler cannot comply with our terms of service and poses a very real risk to public safety, we plan to suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59PM PST.”

Fortunately for Parler, Amazon said they would work with Parler’s team to ensure all of its server data is protected.

“We will ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own servers, and will work with you as best as we can to help your migration,” Amazon said.

How did Parler respond?

After Amazon’s announcement, Parler CEO John Matze said there “is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch.”

Matze criticized the deplatforming effort by Google, Apple, and Amazon, calling it “unprecedented, unfounded and absolutely disgusting.”

“We are the closest thing to competition Facebook or Twitter has seen in many years. I believe Amazon, Google, Apple worked together to try and ensure they don’t have competition,” Matze said.

In another post, Matze continued, “We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.”

“This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast,” Matze added. “You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.”

Share
Categories
Incitement Intelwars Permanently Suspends trump Twitter Violence

Twitter bans President Trump permanently citing ‘risk of further incitement of violence’

Twitter suspended President Donald Trump’s account for good on Friday, announcing that the president’s voice on the platform will never return “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” following statements he made before rioters “violently stormed the Capitol” on Wednesday.

What are the details?

In a message from Twitter’s “safety” account, the company declared, “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

The company attached a link to its explanation for Trump’s permanent suspension, noting that the social media giant had warned Wednesday—when it suspended the president for 12 hours—”that additional violations of Twitter rules would potentially result in this very course of action.”

Twitter pointed to two posts from the president on Friday that led to his ban. The first read, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

The second post read: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

In its analysis, Twitter reasoned that “Due to the ongoing tensions in the United States, and an uptick in the global conversation in regards to the people who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.”

The company provided a number of bullet points explaining their assessment:

  • President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.
  • The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.
  • The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.
  • The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.
  • Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.

The Washington Post reported Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and other top executives in the firm received an email this week from roughly 350 Twitter employees demanding “that the company’s leaders permanently suspend Trump’s account.”

The calls for censorship of the president were also made by several congressional Democrats.

On Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that Trump would be banned from the platform and Facebook-owned Instagram “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

Fox News’ Sean Hannity announced that Trump has joined social media site Parler, an alternative to Twitter. However, Parler itself is now threatened with being de-platformed entirely.

Buzzfeed News reported Friday, “Apple has given Parler, the social network favored by conservatives and extremists, an ultimatum to implement a full moderation plan of its platform within the next 24 hours or face expulsion from the App store.”

In a letter sent to Parler executives obtained by the outlet, Apple explained, in part:

“We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property. The app also appears to continue to be used to plan and facilitate yet further illegal and dangerous activities.”

Share
Categories
Antifa barricaded capitol Destruction elections are selections fake news government is slavery Headline News Insurrection Intelwars Mainstream media oppression Police Protesters psyop rebellion Trump Supporters United States Violence

-UPDATED- Questions About The Chaos At The Capitol That Desperately Need To Be Answered

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The Economic Collapse Blog. 

Like most Americans, I was absolutely horrified by the violence that I witnessed at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.  I didn’t understand how protesters could have possibly gotten inside the U.S. Capitol, and I didn’t understand why police were slow to respond to what was happening.

In the hours following the attack on the Capitol, lots of reports were going back and forth on social media.  Some of the information was good, and some of the information was not.  I have updated this article to reflect the latest information that we have received.  The following are some questions about the chaos at the Capitol that desperately need to be answered…

#1 How Did Protesters Get Near The Capitol In The First Place?

Well, it turns out that police actually opened up the barricades that were surrounding the U.S. Capitol and purposely allowed protesters to storm the building.  You can see this on video right here

And once the barricades were open, at least one police officer was actually waving protesters onward

#2 Who Was Breaking The Doors And Windows At The Capitol?

The general consensus in the media is that it was Trump supporters that did this, but in this video, you can see Trump supporters actually trying to pull Antifa activists away as they were smashing the glass…

And here is another video where you can hear Trump supporters booing as an Antifa activist tries to break a window…

 

#3 Once Protesters Got Inside The Building, Why Did A Guard Lead Them Up Several Flights Of Stairs?

To me, this video footage is absolutely jaw-dropping

Either the U.S. Congress has the worst security personnel that any of us have ever seen, or this was allowed to happen on purpose.

#4 Who Arranged For Antifa Buses To Be Brought Into The Heart Of D.C. With An Escort?

There have been multiple reports that Antifa activists were brought into D.C. by bus.  In fact, one patriot actually recorded video of four Antifa buses that were brought right into the heart of Washington D.C. with an escort…

 

#5 Were Trump Supporters Responsible For Some Of The Vandalism Inside The Capitol?

Yes, sadly there were some Trump supporters that committed crimes inside the U.S. Capitol.

For example, the man that stole a lectern from the Capitol has been identified as a Trump supporter from Florida named Adam Johnson…

And there were many others that got caught up in the violence as well.

#6 Were Radical Leftists Identified Among The Protesters Inside The U.S. Capitol?

Yes.

Utah resident John Sullivan, the founder of a violent far-left organization known as “Insurgence USA”, was photographed inside the Capitol

He was later interviewed by CNN, but they never asked him what he was doing there…

Over the coming weeks, we will learn much more as law enforcement authorities conduct their investigations.

But it is interesting to note that Congressman Mo Brooks is admitting that he was warned of a potential Antifa attack on the Capitol in advance.  The following is what he posted on Twitter earlier today

Please, don’t be like #FakeNewsMedia, don’t rush to judgment on assault on Capitol. Wait for investigation. All may not be (and likely is not) what appears. Evidence growing that fascist ANTIFA orchestrated Capitol attack with clever mob control tactics.

1. A Congressman warned me on MONDAY of a growing ANTIFA threat & advised that I sleep in my office rather than leaving Capitol complex & sleeping in my condo. I heeded that advice & have slept on office floor for 4 straight nights.

2. Congressman told me he was warned on TUESDAY by Capitol Police officer that intelligence suggested fascist ANTIFA was going to try to infiltrate the Trump rally by dressing like Trump supporters.

3. Capitol Police advised TUESDAY that it best not to leave Capitol complex.

4. Evidence, much public, surfacing that many Capitol assaulters were fascist ANTIFAs, not Trump supporters.

All of this just seems very odd to me.

Just as a debate about the evidence of election irregularities was about to begin in the halls of Congress, riots conveniently broke out directly in front of the U.S. Capitol.

Members of Congress were quickly evacuated, and the millions of Americans that were watching never got to see an honest debate about the 2020 election.

When proceedings finally resumed, the entire atmosphere had completely changed, and all of a sudden hardly anyone was interested in debating whether the election results were legitimate or not.

So who actually benefitted from the riots?

I think that question is the key to this whole thing.

Also, it is important to note that these riots have dealt a severe blow to any political future that President Trump hoped to have.

So with one stone, activists have neutered the debate over the legitimacy of the election and they have devastated the Trump movement as well.

It appears that someone really was playing “3D chess”, and it wasn’t Trump and his supporters.

And this is just the beginning.  As I keep warning, the radical left will never be satisfied until they accomplish all of their goals.

Electing Joe Biden was just a way to get rid of Trump.  The radical left actually doesn’t like Biden either, and they will fight him bitterly if Biden does not go along with their full agenda.

In the end, what they want is a full-blown “revolution” in this country.  And as we witnessed on Wednesday, they will go to extreme lengths in order to get what they want.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

The post -UPDATED- Questions About The Chaos At The Capitol That Desperately Need To Be Answered first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share