Categories
Brandeis university Enforcing speech guns Intelwars Left-wing colleges Safe Space Trigger warning Violence Woke culture

‘Trigger warning’ — coined to prop up woke students’ psyches — is on college’s ‘oppressive language list.’ Why? Because of its gun connotations.

It appears the term “trigger warning” first showed up in TheBlaze way back in 2014 in a story about warning labels being placed on classic books.

The piece, citing the New York Times, noted a movement sweeping across college campuses to employ “trigger warnings,” which alert students “that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them.”

As you likely recall, colleges began to create “safe spaces” and call out “microaggressions” while issuing “trigger warnings” — all of which might seem rather innocuous compared to the far-left woke culture that now dominates colleges and many other institutions these days.

But for at least one school, the term “trigger warning” is on the outs.

What are the details?

Brandeis University has issued an “oppressive language list” designed to guide those on campus toward the voluntary use of appropriate speech. It breaks down words and terms that invoke violence, cultural appropriation, and general offensiveness.

And “trigger warning” made the list as as “violent language.” Why?

The chart says “the word ‘trigger’ has connections to guns for many people; we can give the same heads-up using language less connected to violence.”

Are there alternatives? Oh, you betcha. Instead, the chart says, you can substitute “drop-in” or “content note” to warn others that what they’re about to read or see or hear could be traumatic for them.

But that ain’t all

The chart says that the oft-used term “killing it” connotes violence: “If someone is doing well, we don’t need to equate that to murder!” Alternative terms listed are “great job” and “awesome.”

Also on the outs are “take a shot at” and “take a stab at” as “these expressions needlessly use imagery of hurting someone or something.” To be less violent, it’s suggested that one use phrases such as “give it a go” or simply one word: “try.”

In addition, “go off the reservation” is verboten due to its “harmful history rooted in the violent removal of indigenous people from their land and the potential consequences for someone that left the reservation.” Instead, people ought to say, “disagree with the group” or “defect from the group.”

Oh, and “rule of thumb” is a no-no because it “allegedly comes from an old British law allowing men to beat their wives with sticks no wider than their thumb.” To stay on the safe side, use “general rule” instead.

Under the banner of identity-based language are the phrases “long time no see” and “no can do,” which the chart says “stereotypes making fun of non-native English speakers, particularly applied to indigenous people and Asians.” Instead one should say, “I haven’t seen you in so long!” and “sorry, I can’t,” respectively.

Here’s a sampling of other oppressive words and phrases — along with preferred words and phrases — for your edification:

  • Oppressive: Crazy, Insane, Wild; Preferred: That’s bananas
  • Oppressive: Lame; Preferred: Uncool, disappointing
  • Oppressive: Tribe; Preferred: Friends, group, pals
  • Oppressive: Homeless person; Preferred: Person experiencing housing insecurity
  • Oppressive: Prostitute; Preferred: Person who engages in sex work
  • Oppressive: Disabled person; Preferred: Person with a disability
  • Oppressive: Wheelchair-bound; Preferred: Person who uses a wheelchair

(H/T: The Post Millennial)

Share
Categories
AR-15 Behavior Communists control deaths Dystopian elitists Fear freedom government is slavery gun control Headline News Humanity immorality Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie liberty mao zedong mobs political power power ruling class SLAVERY Socialism Threats totalitarian Violence wake up

The Real Reasons Why California Leftists Are Terrified Of The AR-15

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. 

This past week a US District judge in California struck down the state’s 30-year ban on high capacity semi-automatic rifles which leftists label “assault weapons”. The judge called the ban unconstitutional (which it is). In response, the progressive media has lost their collective minds, screeching in horror at the idea of AR-15 rifles being legal within the borders of their carefully manicured socialist Utopia state. Their most commonly expressed reaction seems to be fear.

Fear is rarely a rational thing. When someone operates based on fear, they tend to make terrible decisions and support oppressive causes and laws. Fear leads to an obsession with control. Fearful people also tend to look for large mobs of other terrified people so they can feel safe and secure and anonymous. They want to be able to act impulsively on their fears without having to face consequences for it later.

Leftists are driven primarily by two factors: Narcissism, and yes, fear. I’ve discussed their narcissism at great length in past articles; now I think we should delve into their fear.

The most common leftist retort to the question “Why are you so afraid of the AR-15?” will usually be a snort of indignant disbelief followed by the words: “Because it’s a military weapon designed to kill a lot of people quickly…idiot!”

But this is not an argument, it is an expression of irrational fear. Why are they, as individuals, afraid of the AR-15? What are the chances that they will EVER be faced with a person intent on killing them with an AR-15? And, why do they believe that disarming innocent law-abiding Americans will somehow save them from their paranoia?

Let’s examine the first issue of statistical probability; how many people are actually killed by AR-15s each year? Not many according to the FBI, which does not track the stats on specific rifles, but does track the stats on all rifles together. And, as it turns out, only around 6% of all gun deaths involve rifles in the US each year.

How much of that 6% involves the use of military-grade rifles like the AR-15? It’s impossible to say, but even if it was half, or 3% of all gun-related crimes, that would still mean you have FAR more of a chance of being murdered by a knife or blunt object than an AR. By extension, Rifles overall are dwarfed by handgun murders, so, again, why are leftists so afraid of the AR-15?

What about mass shootings? It seems like the AR-15 is a favorite among mass shooters because of its “efficiency”, so is this reason enough to be fearful? According to the New York Times’ own analysis, the AR-15 was used to kill 173 people in mass shootings in the US from 2007 to 2017. Meaning around 17 homicides per year over a decade can be attributed to the rifle. Again, the AR is dwarfed by almost all other weapons in homicide including knives, even when accounting for mass shootings.

With the sheer number of military-grade weapons in the hands of civilians in the US, there should be mass homicides everywhere you look if you take the common position of the typical progressive gun grabber. But, this is not the case. In fact, if you want to increase your chances of being killed by a gun, move to a major Democrat-run city like Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia. In Chicago, there were 4033 shootings and 784 homicides, predominantly in black neighborhoods and primarily with handguns.

So, statistically, access to AR-15s does not increase gun homicides. But what about living in a black neighborhood in leftist-run Chicago under some of the strictest gun laws in the country? Yes, your chances of being shot are MUCH higher (just not by an AR-15).

Since the math does not add up in favor of the leftists, perhaps we should examine other factors that might be driving them to focus on the AR in particular. Let’s talk about “precedence”…

Look at it this way – States like California are a petri dish, a testing ground for the future that leftists want for the entire country. There is an old saying that “As goes California, so goes the US”, and this is because California is often where most experimental legislation is pushed; legislation that violates the boundaries of what the constitution allows. Sometimes it’s New York or New Jersey or some other blue state, but most of the time CA is where unconstitutional precedents are set. Its massive population and a large number of electoral votes make it a perfect target for conditioning the wider public to further restrictions on their freedoms.

This explains some of the fear the media is showing regarding the latest federal court decision on military-grade weapons like the AR. Political elites see California as their own little kingdom with their own special laws, and they plan to eventually spread those laws across America using California as the model. But, if such laws are overturned as unconstitutional, then the precedent actually works in reverse. Now, the leftists are concerned that an overturned gun ban in CA means more blue states will follow and their entire gun-grabbing scheme will go out the window.

The leftist mind thinks in terms of unchecked and unhinged “democracy”. Meaning, they believe that the majority is paramount; the majority is law. If a majority in a society wants to take away your freedoms, then they have the right to because they have the mob on their side. 51% rules over the lives of the other 49%. But this is not how things work in a Constitutional Republic.

Under the Bill of Rights, your freedoms are codified and sacrosanct. They are inherent and gifted by God (or whatever you happen to believe in); government has no domain over these rights. The right to firearms and self-defense is one of these inherent qualities. It does not matter what the State of California thinks, or even what the “majority” of people in California think. If an American in California wants to own an AR-15, then he/she has the right to own an AR-15.

We also cannot ignore the fact that leftists have an insatiable appetite for collectivism, usually in the name of the “greater good”. Collectivism is basically totalitarianism disguised as humanitarianism. They know what’s best for you, and they are going to make sure you follow THEIR plan for your life.

The AR-15 is indeed a military-grade weapon, and maybe this is what frightens leftists the most. Not because they are personally more likely to be shot by one (we’ve already proven that notion false), but because leftists desire control over all else, and with military-grade weapons in the hands of the public control becomes much more difficult. ALL totalitarian governments seek to first disarm the people they intend to enslave or destroy. This is a fact.

When a group of people in power are working hard to remove defensive or even offensive weapons from your hands, it’s best to assume that their intentions are malevolent. They are not trying to help you, they are trying to help themselves.

They will deny this motive to the grave, but look at how the political left has been acting lately: They are the only people that have supported mass censorship of opposing viewpoints. They are the only people that are supported by international conglomerates and Big Tech companies. They are the only people that supported the pandemic lockdowns, which were completely useless in stopping the spread of covid, but they were very useful in killing hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the US. They are also the only people in favor of vaccine passports which would destroy the very fabric of our society and erase what is left of our freedoms.

It’s not really surprising that they want to disarm us as well.

Of course, they will claim that this argument is “silly”. After all, what can an AR-15 do against an Apache helicopter or an Abrams battle tank? Well, these rifles in the right hands can do a hell of a lot to stop a technologically advanced military, as we have seen for the past two decades in Afghanistan. Let us not play games; there is a reason why leftists and elites are obsessed with our disarmament. If military-grade rifles were not a threat to them, then they would not be going after them so aggressively.

Finally, the mainstream media has rolled out all the typical propaganda tools when it comes to spinning the federal decision in CA, including attacking the judge and his character. Almost every single article on this issue focuses on the fact that the judge compared the AR-15 to a “Swiss Army knife”.

The left will continue to use this narrative as a means to distract from the real problem at hand because false conflations and straw man arguments have worked for them in the past. Clearly, the judge was not trying to say that an AR-15 and a Swiss Army knife are exactly the same, or that they are equally capable of killing people. The logical interpretation is that the AR-15 is a tool like any other tool, and it has multiple uses. It is a utilitarian object, not an inherently demonic death machine as leftists would have us believe.

Gun grabbers love to make the argument that firearms are only designed for one purpose: “Killing”. This is a lie. They are also tools for self-defense. They are a means to defuse a violent situation before it even happens. There are thousands of videos on the web showing people with criminal intent running away from a Good Samaritan with a gun. There is no way of telling how many potential victims have been saved by the mere presence of a firearm, but the accounts are documented and numerous.

This is on top of all the other uses for guns, including hunting and sporting uses. So, yes, the judge is absolutely correct; an AR-15 is a multipurpose tool, just like a Swiss Army knife.

In my view, the gun control lobby in America is in the midst of a considerable decline, and maybe it is even about to die. The political left has long operated on the mantra that “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”. In other words, they think if they whine long enough and loud enough about an issue someone will come along and give them what they want just to shut them up, even if what they want is illogical or morally bankrupt.

This strategy has worked out for them for many decades so it’s not surprising that they keep using it, but times are changing. Now, the squeaky wheel gets no oil, at least not from gun owners. The squeaky wheel gets nothing.

Gun control is the big line in the sand for most law-abiding conservatives and moderates, and we have grown tired of the debate because it’s no longer a debate, it’s an imposition of ideology and cultism. All the facts are on the side of gun owners. All the legal protections are on the side of gun owners. All the moral dynamics are on the side of gun owners. As long as we stand our ground, there is nothing that leftists can do about it.

They can continue to lie, they can continue to threaten and they can continue exploiting emotional arguments, but they’ll NEVER get the guns. And, as we have seen recently, we might even start returning some of those gun rights and rifles to states like California, where fear was used to cloud the public mind and people were conned into compliance

What are California leftists and their comrades in other blue states really afraid of? They are afraid that their strategies are failing, that the public is getting wise to their games, that their incrementalism only works for so long, that their true intentions have become transparent, that their narcissism has blinded them to their own frailties, that the law is not their plaything and that every piece of constitutional ground they have stolen over the decades could be taken back from them in the blink of an eye; as fast as a speeding bullet

Leftists and totalitarians fear the AR-15, but what they fear more is what it represents. And with each carefully placed practice shot at every gun range across America, they hear the crushing sound of inevitability.

The post The Real Reasons Why California Leftists Are Terrified Of The AR-15 first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
allies China Cold War control enemies Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden military budget MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Murder opponents political parasites power Russia Violence War war is a racket

Old and New Official Enemies

This article was originally published by Jacob G. Hornberger at The Future of Freedom Foundation. 

Doing his best to justify President Biden’s $750 billion military budget, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that China’s military has been building its military capabilities at “a very serious and sustained rate.”

Well, of course, it has been. How else would the US national-security establishment justify its ever-increasing budgets? I’m just surprised that Milley didn’t mention Russia in the same breath, as well as North Korea, Cuba, the Taliban, Venezuela, Iran, and all the other minor official enemies, maybe even communist Vietnam too.

China and Russia were the two official enemies — or “rivals,” “opponents,” “enemies” — during the Cold War that kept the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA in high cotton. That was when both countries were supposedly part of an international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Moscow. If increasing amounts of US taxpayer money were not shifted into the coffers of the US national-security establishment, it was argued, America would end up falling to this international communist conspiracy.

In fact, it was this supposed threat of “godless communism” that was emanating from Moscow that was the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state in the first place. For more than 150 years, the federal government operated as a limited-government republic with limited powers. After World War II, it was converted to a national-security state to wage the Cold War against China, Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, other communist countries, and communism in general. That’s when the US national-security establishment acquired omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.

As we pointed out in our recent online conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination,” by the summer of 1963 President Kennedy had achieved a breakthrough and recognized that this Cold War fear-mongering was nothing more than a racket. At his Peace Speech at American University, he threw the gauntlet down by declaring an end to the Cold War and an intention to have the United States exist in peaceful harmony with the communist world.

That sealed John Kennedy’s fate. No president since Kennedy has dared to do that.

After Kennedy was removed from office, Americans got the Vietnam War and another 25 years of ever-increasing money, influence, and power for the national-security establishment,

It was always assumed by most everyone that the Cold War racket would go on forever. To the shock of the US national-security establishment, the Soviet Union unilaterally called it quits in 1989. China was, of course, still around, just as North Korea and Cuba were. But the Pentagon and the CIA knew that without the Soviet Union, their Cold War racket would no longer be sufficiently powerful to justify ever-increasing budgets.

That’s when they went into the Middle East and began killing, destroying, and humiliating people, knowing that this would almost certainly produce terrorist “blowback” or retaliation. And sure enough, it did: the World Trade Center in 1993, the USS Cole, and the US embassies in East Africa. But none of them was large enough to become a gigantic new official enemy that would replace the Soviet Union and godless communism.

But then the 9/11 attacks came, which provided the new official enemy to replace communism — “terrorism.” The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were back in high cotton again with ever-increasing annual budgets to wage their “global war on terrorism.”

The 9/11 terrorist attacks were then used as the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, where US forces wreaked massive death and destruction over many years, which guaranteed more anger and rage, which ensured a never-ending supply of new terrorists.

Thus, the Pentagon and the CIA had found another official enemy, one that was likely to last for decades, perhaps even longer than the Soviet Union and godless communism.

But after 20 years of interventionism in Afghanistan and the Middle East, US forces are now in retreat, which means that all the fear-mongering about how the terrorists are coming to get us will lack the impact it had on Americans in the years after the 9/11 attacks.

What to do now? The answer is obvious: It’s now time to return to China and Russia as America’s old and new official enemies. Oh, sure, the threat of an international conspiracy involving godless communism supposedly emanating from Moscow will not be available but the hope is that Americans will nonetheless be just as afraid so that they don’t question the ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer largess going into the military intelligence coffers.

There is only one solution to this sordid, deadly, destructive, and corrupt racket: the dismantling, not the reform, of the national-security state apparatus and the restoration of America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic. That’s the way to lead America to peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world.

The post Old and New Official Enemies first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Colordao cops CORRUPTION Death deaths detained Elijah mcclain enforcers Force Headline News innocent Intelwars ketamine killing legality lying Manitou Springs Morality Murder no crime no victim Police Police State question authority Self-ownership Seven Reycraft stealing torture Violence wake up

Video Shows Cops Attack, Restrain, Forcibly Sedate 60yo Man with Ketamine for Refusing to ID

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Trigger Warning!” If you are still a believer in the left vs. right paradigm lie and have not yet realized the truth that the police enforce the will of the ruling class on others using all methods of force, up to and including death, then this article will upset you. Laws are nothing more than the opinions of politicians backed by the threat of force and violence by the hired “enforcers”.  Still think you’re free?

 

Cops in Colorado have a rather disturbing track record when it comes to compliance during detainments. Family and friends of Elijah McClain learned this the hard way two years ago after McClain — who had broken no law — was detained, tackled to the ground, and forcibly sedated with ketamine before he succumbed to the force and drug, and died. Seven Reycraft, 60, experienced a similar interaction with police that same year, but fortunately for Reycraft he did not die and now he is fighting to change the way this drug is used on people.

Body camera footage from Reycraft’s interaction with police was recently released, showing the extent police will go to in order to enforce traffic infractions with no victim. On that day in 2019, police targeted Reycraft for extortion, claiming he had committed a minor traffic infraction. When Reycraft disputed their claims, police attacked the man before forcing medics to give him several injections of sedatives.

“Looking back on it, I think it’s absurd, and it should’ve never happened. It didn’t need to happen,” Reycraft told KDVR, telling them he was injected for questioning authority.

“They didn’t like the fact that I was challenging their professionalism, and I was,” Reycraft said, explaining that he refused to id himself to cops during the traffic stop. According to Colorado law, if you are pulled over while driving, a police officer can require you to show your license, insurance, and vehicle registration. However, Reycraft didn’t feel that the stop was warranted, so he contested it.

As it is the job of a police officer to extort citizens for traffic stops, up to and including the use of violent and deadly force to achieve said extortion, when Reycraft contested, he was subsequently tackled to the ground and handcuffed, with officers cutting open his forehead in the process.

“Every time they wrenched my arm, it hurt a lot, but I was more incensed by what I was witnessing,” Reycraft said.

Naturally, when questioned about the use of force, the Manitou Springs Police Department issued a statement claiming they have the right to use violence against citizens to enforce the law.

“For the safety of our community, public safety employees, and everybody involved, it is standard police practice to implement a reasonable use of force within the confines of the law when someone is resisting detention.

“The MSPD takes any use of force extremely seriously, and as a team, reviews every use of force incident by our officers to ensure that we are remaining vigilant and focused on the betterment of our community,” said Alex Trefry, a spokesperson for Manitou Springs.

During the detainment, Reycraft was certainly agitated, but he presented no threat to the officers involved who had him surrounded and in handcuffs. Nevertheless, police directed paramedics to forcibly sedate the man — over a minor traffic infraction.

As the video shows, the paramedic asked the officers if Reycraft had been behaving erratically, to which the officers responded, “no, he’s one of these people that doesn’t want to give his name and (he’s saying) he has the right not to and all this other stuff.”

So, for being one of “those people,” cops were going to drug the man against his will.

The paramedic gave Reycraft two shots of the sedative Versed before proceeding to inject ketamine into the 60-year-old man’s butt. Reycraft was handcuffed, hogtied, strapped to a gurney face down, and already had been injected with two doses of Versed when the ketamine was administered. There was no reason whatsoever to inject him, yet police directed the medic to do so anyway.

“The fact that police can influence the health provider to the point where the health provider forgets their oath of helping people, it’s absurd,” Reycraft said.

“I think his case is a very good example of the misuse of ketamine because, specifically, the paramedic said when she walked up that it was not excited delirium and that she was not going to give him ketamine,” said Anita Springsteen, an attorney who is representing Reycraft, according to KDVR.

“People in the United States should not be forcibly injected this way or given death sentences this way without due process,” said Springsteen.

We agree, however, in the land of the free, for refusing to show police your id, they will tackle you, strap you down, and then forcibly inject you with multiple sedatives, and they will refer to this torture as “due process.”

The post Video Shows Cops Attack, Restrain, Forcibly Sedate 60yo Man with Ketamine for Refusing to ID first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Baltimore business owners City services Crime Intelwars Police TAXES Violence watch

Baltimore shops fed up with ‘prostitution, public urination, and defecation’ — and threaten to not pay taxes until there’s more police, better services

A group of nearly 40 restaurants and shops in Baltimore’s Fells Point neighborhood are threatening to withhold city tax payments and other fees unless they get more policing and better services,
WJZ-TV reported.

What are the details?

The 37 business owners signed a pointed letter addressed to Mayor Brandon Scott, Councilman Zeke Cohen, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, and Police Commissioner Michael Harrison following a weekend of violence and mayhem that included
three men getting shot Saturday night, the station said.

“What is happening in our front yard — the chaos and lawlessness that escalated this weekend into another night of tragic, unspeakable gun violence — has been going on for far too long,” the letter said, according to WJZ.

The businesses plan to place the withheld funds in an escrow account until the city meets four demands, the station reported:

  • Pick up the trash
  • Enforce traffic and parking laws through tickets and towing
  • Stop illegal open-air alcohol and drug sales
  • Empower police to responsibly do their jobs

The letter added that minor crimes that police “ignore” are what leads to incidents like the weekend shooting, WJZ noted.

‘Prostitution, public urination and defecation’

“When it comes to prostitution, public urination and defecation, and the illegal sale and consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs on the streets, we know these crimes are not as serious as the carjackings, shootings, and homicides that have become routine,” the letter also said, according to the station. “But, as this past weekend proved, a culture of lawlessness rarely remains confined to petty offenses and invariably leads to the kinds of violence and tragedy we witnessed late Saturday night.”

The letter ended by saying that Fells Point is “one of the crown jewels of Baltimore,” and that the small problems could lead to the neighborhood’s demise, WJZ noted.

“Frankly, it’s pathetic that we have to ask for these basics,” the letter also said, according to the station. “But this is where we are.”

Here’s the
full letter:

What did the mayor’s office have to say?

“Mayor Scott shares the business owners’ frustrations over the violence across the city, and has ordered the Baltimore Police Department, Department of Public Works, and Department of Transportation to work collaboratively to address it,” a statement from the Mayor’s Office reads, WJZ reported. “The Mayor is working tirelessly to hold people committing violence accountable, remove violent offenders from our streets, and identify illegal firearm traffickers so Baltimore residents can enjoy a night out without fear of endangerment.”

Anything else?

Perhaps not coincidentally, Mosby in March announced that Baltimore would permanently suspend prosecution of prostitution, drug possession, minor traffic offenses, and other so-called “quality of life” crimes.

After the program had been in place temporarily due to COVID-19, Mosby claimed violent crime had declined 20%, and property crime had declined 36%: “Clearly, the data suggest there is no public safety value in prosecuting low-level offenses.”

Here’s another video report about the violence over the weekend — and at whom the business owners are pointing their fingers:


Fells Point business owner blames Mosby, Harrison, Scott for failing to curb violence

youtu.be

Share
Categories
cops democide detainment freedom government is slavery HARASSMENT Headline News Intelwars Law Enforcement liberty LIES Murder no good cops Police State Threats Violence wake up

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

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

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

We’ve all been there before.

You’re driving along and you see a pair of flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror. Whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, you get a sinking feeling in your stomach.

You’ve read enough news stories, seen enough headlines, and lived in the American police state long enough to be anxious about any encounter with a cop that takes place on the side of the road.

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

So if you’re nervous about traffic stops, you have every reason to be.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Try to assert your right to merely ask a question during a traffic stop and see how far it gets you.

Juanisha Brooks—black, 34 years old, and on her way home at 2:20 am—was pulled over, handcuffed, arrested, and charged with resisting arrest, eluding the police, reckless driving, and failure to use headlights after repeatedly asking police why she had been stopped. When Brooks—a Department of Defense employee—filed a complaint, prosecutors conceded that the traffic stop had been carried out without “proper legal basis” and dropped all charges.

Caron Nazario, a uniformed Army officer returning home from his duty station, was stopped for not having a rear license plate (his temporary plates were taped to the rear window of his new SUV). Nazario, who is Black and Latino, pulled over at a well-lit gas station only to be pepper-sprayed, held at gunpoint, beaten, and threatened with execution.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window.

Despite complying with all police orders when ordered to show his identification and exit his parked vehicle, Jeriel Edwards was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. Although dashcam video of the arrest confirms that Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke police, a federal court ruled that Edwards’ trouble understanding police directions during the encounter constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Edwards is African-American.

Gregory Tucker, also black, was stopped by police for a broken taillight, only to be thrown to the ground, beaten and punched in the face and body more than 20 times, then arrested and hospitalized for severe injuries to his face and arm, all for allegedly “resisting arrest” by driving to a safe, well-lit area in front of his cousin’s house before stopping.

No wonder Americans are afraid of getting pulled over by police.

Mind you, all of these individuals complied with the police. They just didn’t do it fast enough to suit their purposes.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

According to data collected under Virginia’s new Community Policing Act, black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix, and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries, and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone objector in the case. Dissenting in Heien, Sotomayor warned, “Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority… One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Remember Walter L. Scott? Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

Sandra Bland, pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. “You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly.

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any fail-safe rules of engagement for interacting with the police.

In the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with the police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact, that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials, and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police.

However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all-powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights.

The post Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish government abolish slavery agenda authority is a myth belief brainwashing control the masses controlled media Critical Thinking divide and conquer Education elitists false perceptions freedom government is slavery Headline News Hegelian Dialect Intelwars Mainstream media manufactured outrage Masters no control no masters no slaves perception polarized society predatory class propaganda Reality Regulations Research rulers ruling class sheep slaves The Matrix Violence wake up

How Truth was Destroyed So Americans Would Crave Propaganda

This article was originally published by Don Via Jr. at The Free Thought Project. 

In this first installment of The Free Thought Project’s new investigative collection, Declassified: The Conspiracy Fact Series, we take an in-depth dive into understanding the nuances of controlled corporate media. Particularly in the United States, and how information warfare is used to shape public opinion.

One of the most vital fundamentals in understanding how the ruling elite/predator class facilitates their agendas is the role of controlled media to create perception. Perception is, in essence, reality. What is perceived is usually widely believed.

For example, the notion that the sky is blue. Scientifically speaking it actually is not, we only perceive it as blue due to the refraction of light waves through the earth’s atmosphere and into the retina of the eye. Ask anyone without an understanding of this scientifically fundamental fact and they will undoubtedly espouse that the sky is indeed blue — as that is the “reality” created by their perception. This is a harmless false perception, but others are not so.

The same is true for illusionary reality versus objective reality. Empirical observation of how the world really works as opposed to a manufactured perception based on incomplete or inaccurate information represented as authoritative and propagated in repetition.

Unfortunately however in our ever-increasingly polarized society, it is the manufactured perception that is espoused most fervently. In some cases, those who choose to ignore facts in favor of narrative, echo chambers, and tribalism, live in a somewhat alternate reality, albeit a willfully ignorant one.

A control paradigm plays a crucial part in this. And as this report will demonstrate, the current incarnation of US news media, by way of deliberate obfuscation facilitates this paradigm by default.

One stark example of this would be manufactured outrage. Manufactured outrage is a term to describe the intentional misrepresentation of events with the aim of invoking a furious reaction from one or more groups of people. Intentionally praying on the emotional vulnerability of the human condition, typically in the form of gaslighting. Done so in a way that those galvanizing the reaction would find beneficial to their own aims.

Manufactured outrage is a tactic used frequently by the media, typically as a tool of controlled opposition used within identity politics to maintain division.

As this article exemplifies the multiple facets in which the media has been co-opted for use towards these manipulative agendas, the context for the use of manufactured outrage will become clear.

But before we continue, this point deserves recognition —

When discussing the subversive nature of the MSM with critics they often tout the notion that we “distrust the media but site their articles when it benefits us”. While partly true, that notion lacks comprehension of delineation. Recognizing the media regularly purports propaganda does not necessarily denote they are untrustworthy all of the time. As with any proper research of sources, nuance is critical. It does mean however their reputation is sullied enough to warrant heavy scrutiny.

Ascertaining fact from fiction requires due diligence, discernment, and critical thinking to determine if what is being said can be affirmed by tangible evidence. If the entire truth is being told, or a half-truth. If it is impartial, or biased. So when mainstream media articles are used in part to back up a claim, it is because they are corroborated by other verifiable independent sources.

Over the years, evidence has emerged corroborating many so-called conspiracy theories, as this series is intended to demonstrate. From mass surveillance to propaganda, geoengineering, false flag attacks, and even shadowy government entities influencing the outcome of events. Despite the insistence of the mainstream media that people not think for themselves, in many cases doing your own research is a necessity no matter how ludicrous the claim may sound.

One such perfect example of this can be derived from a particular incident regarding arguably the world’s most infamous conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. Even those that haven’t followed Jones’s work will likely be familiar with his viral rant about “chemicals in the water turning the freaking frogs gay”. Despite Jones’ sensationalism, and a number of his shortcomings that we here at The Free Thought Project have criticized ourselves; this particular example itself is important because it demonstrates nuance. As the specific instance in question he was referencing is still factually accurate.

Jones was referring to a study from Berkeley University, which has since been corroborated by other scientific bodies, finding that the common herbicide atrazine had contaminated water supplies. Causing severe disruption to the hormonal balances and sexual biology of frogs and other animals.

Case and point; despite the absolutely ridiculous nature in which Jones presented the information, it is still in and of itself true. Hopefully, this simple example can serve as food for thought exercise in critical thinking as we dive further into this subject at large.

REGIME PROPAGANDA

It goes without saying corrupt regimes rely on state propaganda and loyal media assets to manufacture the public’s consent, or apathy, for their crimes. Get caught enough times doing this and it will inevitably foster distrust in the corporate media. As they become aware that propaganda has been used as a tool for social engineering by governments around the world in one form or another for centuries.

The same is true for the American Empire.

Social engineering is defined as “the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society”. In layman’s terms, those in power promote aspects and ideas sympathetic to their intentions in order to influence a culture of normalization to certain aspects that would previously be considered unacceptable. Psychological manipulation, suggestive thinking, and propaganda play a key role in this process.

A relevant case of this would be America’s hunger for war. Once upon a time, organized murder was abhorred by the average American, the detestable increase to the national debt as a result of military spending, and the egregious loss of youths to a fickle foreign conflict was enough to turn off the citizenry from its barbary. But through the use of Hollywood and other means of glorifying war over generations, America’s war culture has become almost bloodthirsty. Wholly desensitized to the brutality hoisted upon our fellow man. Distracted by hubris and self-righteous delusions of exceptionalism.

In 2002 this psychological conditioning took on a more sinister role with the Pentagon Military Analyst Program. The PMAP was a covert propaganda campaign administered by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clark, on behalf of the Bush Administration. The goal of which was to manufacture public support for the coming invasion of Iraq. In hindsight, it, unfortunately, worked like a charm. After being exposed in 2008 the program has been referred to as “psyops on steroids”.

In the years since, the horror, destruction, and the loss of young innocent life to the feeble machinations of sociopathic oligarchs have become merely an afterthought; The might of the military-industrial complex, the atrocities of imperialist neocolonialism, and the state of perpetual war now going almost entirely unquestioned by the populace. The anti-war movement dissolving as a casualty of attrition in the information war.

Over the years, public trust in media has fallen to abysmal levels. The most recent data, from Edelman’s Trust Barometer, indicates that American public trust in corporate media has fallen to an all-time low of below 50 percent. Rightfully so as people begin to see through their fakery.

There are numerous instances demonstrating the chicaneries of the corporate press. Though one of the most profound in recent years is that of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

As covered by TFTP at the time, in early 2018 a video went viral showing a compilation of hundreds of local news stations around the country parroting the same script verbatim. Ironically, decrying the pervasiveness of so-called “fake news” and declaring “this is extremely dangerous to our democracy”. Fully illustrating the systemic and coordinated efforts of narrative control practiced by a corporate press in bed with the state and acting as an arm of the US intelligence apparatus.

Making the leap from a scripted corporate mass media to state-sponsored disseminators of propaganda is not as far-fetched as many would like to believe. Beyond this scathing example, their own documents prove this deceit as well.

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD

Domestic propaganda operations in the US officially began in 1951 with a CIA project called Operation Mockingbird that went unknown for over two decades. In 1975, a U.S Senate committee hearing was undertaken to investigate misconduct of the intelligence community. Chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-Id), the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities is more commonly referred to as The Church Committee. Among many other damning revelations, it exposed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had assets working within the United States corporate media apparatus granting the agency a degree of influence.

In 1977, the program was exposed in even more totality by veteran reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame. His expansive 25,000-word exposé in Rolling Stone magazine thoroughly documented the collaboration between the CIA and the media during the Cold War years.

Officially, around that time, the program was supposed to have been shut down. However, on May 25th, 2010, a task force memorandum to the Director of Central Intelligence was authorized for declassification. The document, PAO 09-0586, dated December 20th, 1991, acknowledged that the agency still maintained an even greater influence over the realms of media and academia.

Stating on page 6 —

“PAO now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some “intelligence failure” stories into “intelligence success” stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected National Security interests, or jeopardized sources and methods.”

A full 15 years after Operation Mockingbird was supposed to have ended, their own documents prove it was working stronger than ever. What’s more, evidence shows that it continues even to the present day.

In 2014 it was revealed that Ken Dilanian, a prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers prior to publication, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.

Despite being disgraced by these revelations, and disavowed by the LA Times, Dilanian still finds employment as a correspondent for NBC.

In 2016, the release of a trove of internal emails from political advisor John Podesta by WikiLeaks revealed even further damning evidence of the collusion between the corporate media and the ruling class. From private dinners to requests of pre-publication approval, to direct evidence of election meddling. The emails demonstrated the true nature of the mainstream press’s role in politics: Not as impartial reporters of facts. But as partisan propaganda mouthpieces for the elite.

Even more recently, TFTP published a report exposing that mainstream media outlets still use mass scripted narratives to shape public opinion to this very day.

However, those are far from the only ties between the American mass media and the intelligence community

AGENCY SPOOKS IN FRONT OF THE CAMERA.

In addition to calling the shots behind the scenes, in recent years deep state operatives have gotten all too comfortable working in front of the camera as well. Oftentimes admitting their former profession as Americans remain infatuated as ever, never stopping to question the sincerity of professional liars.

Some of the most prominent names in prime time news admittedly share ties to the very agency that maintains so much influence over their new employers. Since 2018 former CIA director John Brennan has been a national security advisor on MSNBC. Prior to joining CNN, Philip Mudd was an analyst for the CIA and ex-National Security deputy director for the FBI. Fox News contributor and conservative pundit Daniel Bongino is also a former senior member of the United States Secret Service, tasked with the personal protective duties of former President Barack Obama. Even the likes of Anderson Cooper and Tucker Carlson share some sort of affiliation with the agency.

With the former having been an intern for the CIA in his early twenties and Carlson who had applied to join the CIA while in college.

These and many more exemplify the wide-reaching consequences of those early infiltration operations decades prior. With several more names tied to the intelligence community, the likes of James Clapper, Chuck Rosenberg, Michael Hayden, Frank Figliuzzi, Fran Townsend, Stephen Hall, Samantha Vinograd, Andrew McCabe, Josh Campbell, Asha Rangappa, James Gagliano, Jeremy Bash, Susan Hennessey, Ned Price, and Rick Francona.

All are among assets to the agency currently permeating the media, as mentioned in a recent article by journalist and political commentator Caitlin Johnstone.

An excerpt reads —

“In totalitarian dictatorships, the government spy agency tells the news media what stories to run, and the news media unquestioningly publish it. In free democracies, the government spy agency says “Hoo buddy, have I got a scoop for you!” and the news media unquestioningly publish it.” …..

“Nowadays the CIA collaboration happens right out in the open, and people are too propagandized to even recognize this as scandalous.” …..

“This isn’t Operation Mockingbird. It’s so much worse. Operation Mockingbird was the CIA doing something to the media. What we are seeing now is the CIA openly acting as the media. Any separation between the CIA and the news media, indeed even any pretence of separation, has been dropped.”

An astute observation indeed, as the lines between political pundits and professional propagandists have not just been blurred, not only crossed, nay entirely obliterated. As state-sponsored presstitutes masquerade as arbiters of truth when in fact their social engineering and disinformation campaigns make them more akin to terrorists waging psychological warfare on the masses.

But for one to truly understand the incestuous relationship between supposed news pundits and purveyors of disinformation, it is necessary to explore the history of its origins. Prior to operation Mockingbird, even before the CIA’s very existence. To the dawn of mainstream press, and then to the revealing a dark untold chapter of American history from the second world war.

THE FATHER OF PROPAGANDA, AND THE NAZI ORIGINS OF MEDIA MANIPULATION.

The origin story of how the present US media came to be in such a dismal state is one of intrigue that reads almost like a bad James Bond novel. It begins in the 1920s.

The so-called father of public relations is a man by the name of Dr. Edward Bernays. In other circles, known as the father of propaganda. Brilliant in his own right, he is the nephew of world-renowned & infamous psychologist Dr. Sigmund Freud. But Bernays is credited in many circles with his work in psychology being applicable to use in PR tactics in media, and later, politics and psychological warfare. In 1928, he published his best-known book, aptly titled ‘Propaganda’. At the time the word did not have the negative connotations associated with it now.

Shortly after its publication advertisers were already adapting strategies developed by Bernays to plant subliminal messages in the minds of their target demographics encouraging them to consume more. From cigarettes to the jewelry industry, big oil and so much more, the corporatist class was essentially handed a how-to manual to curry favor from the public — This works with a simple trick of sensory misdirection. Through ad campaigns and other media, the subconscious mind is fooled into accepting a planted thought. This and other strategies are what the predator class employs to maintain a positive public perception and garner support for their agendas.

Think of that scene from the cult-classic film They Live, when Piper puts on his glasses to see the real world — the reality beyond the manufactured perception — He turns back to see the array of billboards and advertisements now simply read: “Consume. Obey. Stay asleep”.

Such is the art of deceptive propaganda developed by Dr. Bernays.

With that said, it is imperative to stress how crucial it is for the public at large to put forth the effort in educating themselves with regard to the nuances of psychological operations. There is no better weapon in protecting oneself against these tactics than understanding how these strategies are employed and the way in which the human brain functions when introduced to them.

For those in need of a starting point to garnering this most vital of insights, viewing the acclaimed 2013 documentary film State of Mind: The Psychology of Control is recommended.

To continue, Bernays himself is well noted having spoken on the role of these tactics in engineering society. Having famously said —

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

However most notoriously, Dr. Bernays’s work was first actualized to its full insidious potential during the dark days of Third Reich era Germany.

Throughout the 1930s and 40s, Joseph Goebbels was the Chief Propaganda Minister for Hitler’s Nazi regime. He had also become a staunch admirer of Bernays since his early work in the 1920s, despite his being a Jew.

Ultimately Edward Bernays himself personally refused requests to conduct American public relations on behalf of the Nazi regime (unlike other American companies who covertly worked on Hitler’s behalf). As he himself was concerned with the manner in which the tactics of mental manipulation he pioneered would be applied by the fascist government. But that didn’t stop Goebbels from adopting much of his publicly published strategies. He primarily applied Bernays’s work throughout all of Germany’s mass media during the reign of the Third Reich, to socially engineer and psychologically manipulate the public into blissful ignorance.

“This is the secret of propaganda; Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing they are being immersed in it.” – Joseph Goebbels.

This short story of the origin of Nazi propaganda is important to this article because it is also the progenitor to America’s most pervasive propaganda operations. Due to one post-World War II program in particular; Operation Paperclip.

In brief summation, Operation Paperclip was the program authorized by President Harry Truman in 1946, in an effort to get a leg up on the Soviet Union in the oncoming Cold War. The program authorized thousands of Nazis proficient in science, technology, and various other areas of expertise to be given amnesty from the Nuremberg trials and brought to America under new identities, in exchange for pledging to work for the United States government.

In a sense, this was a legal and authorized infiltration of America’s most secure halls of government by top Nazi officials, including within the Pentagon.
Before Operation Paperclip was officially authorized in 1946 it operated under the code name Project Overcast. During this time the fascists in American custody were placed to work in various departments, including the Office of Strategic Services.

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS), an agency of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and one of the United States first covert action agencies, was then shortly disbanded in late 1945 with its operational duties spread between the State Department, and the Department of War (now the Department of Defense). Until 1947, with the signing of the National Security Act, when the remnants of the OSS were built upon as the predecessor to the newly-formed Central Intelligence Agency. With the federal government’s newly acquiesced Germans being among its first employees.

You read that correctly — the creation of the CIA is directly tied to the Nazi infiltration of the United States of America. Authorized by our own government.

The point of explaining this is that just as the CIA itself is a product of America’s partnership with ex-nazis, so are some of their earliest and most nefarious operations; Including the aforementioned propaganda program Operation Mockingbird, which was directly based on the strategies utilized by Joseph Goebbels.

As we can see, this history of state-sponsored deception is a vast and sinister one. However, it doesn’t end there. As the years went on and these programs were refined what became of it was a monstrous offspring of collusion between fascist entities and America’s corporatist power structure.

CORPORATE CONGLOMERATION.

At the outset of Operation Mockingbird, there were close to 100 mass media companies that contributed to the mainstream. Despite this, most of them were still infiltrated and brought under the CIA’s umbrella of control. Corporate mergers and mass media consolidations had already been underway, but by the 1980s it had reached a fever pitch with only 50 major companies controlling the media.

Fast forward to today that number is only six. Six mega-corporations that control roughly 90% of what over 328 million Americans see, hear, & read on a daily basis. If that level of information control seems staggering, it’s because it is.

In 2012, an infographic was created in order to detail this vast amalgamation and the power it wields over society. Originally those six companies were GE, Disney, CBS, Viacom, News Corp, and Time Warner. But since then as other transactions and mergers have taken place, they are now Comcast, AT&T, Disney, News Corp, Viacom, and CBS. Technically, the actual number of corporations is five, given that CBS and Viacom are both owned by National Amusements Inc.

Giving just a few hundred executives and 15 billionaires almost complete control over the flow of information that controls the perception of the masses.

This is found to be even more concerning than originally postulated, as in January of 2018 WikiLeaks tweeted information from a chart that shows almost all of these conglomerates and media holdings are tied to one single unelected bureaucratic entity — The Council on Foreign Relations.

For those unaware, the CFR is one of the United States’ oldest and most establishment think tanks of the American “elite” predator-class. Often, they set the agenda on important policy questions and are incremental in maintaining positions such as perpetual war.

Being a central pillar in the trifecta unelected globalist policy groups alongside the Trilateral Commission, and notorious Bilderberg Group. So brazen they are in their sway over American journalists that that same year CFR member Richard Stengel, former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs for the Obama Administration, openly suggested the media use propaganda against American citizens.

Stengel now ironically has a new position as a crusader against “fake news”. And is a distinguished member of the neocon think-tank the Atlantic Council — the same governmental body hired by Facebook to serve as its purveyor of government-funded censorship.

Finally, to top off this web of collusion and disinformation, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 signed by President Obama included a provision that essentially legalized the domestic dissemination of propaganda. Despite the insistence of mainstream voices such as the Associated Press that this was not the case; the plethora of evidence presented here both leading up to and after the signage of the law demonstrates whether legalized or not — the propagandizing of unwitting American citizens is indeed a common practice.

Worse still, yet again as TFTP reported in 2016, a similar provision was passed in that year’s NDAA. This time under the guise of “countering disinformation” it gave propagandists full reign to increase their dissemination and gave a green light to launch an all-out campaign against the alternative media. Paving the way for the now-infamous coordinated social media purge of October 11th, 2018.

Despite stating the obvious that they certainly didn’t need a law to propagandize their own citizens, these authorizations opened the floodgates. As we’ve seen in past years continuing through to today, the blatant flagrant lies of the mainstream media now know no bounds.

Even recently, the undercover reporters of Project Veritas revealed in an investigation bombshell admissions coming directly from the technical director of CNN. Caught on hidden camera, director Charlie Chester admits that their network engages in propaganda for everything from influencing the election, to promoting fear-mongering of covid-19.

From one example to another, the Mockingbirds in their respective cages are working harder than ever to parrot the status quo talking points.

CONTROLLED MEDIA IN THE DIGITAL AGE.

In recent years as society has continued to progress into the digital age, the flow of information has become much more abundant for the average individual. Thanks to the internet providing a gateway beyond the gatekeepers of the corporate press, the citizenry is now presented with an opportunity to educate themselves and scrutinize the talking heads. As the media’s reputation continue to drop and people began searching elsewhere to inform themselves, it became necessary to attempt to rein in this sphere of influence.

Hence the previously mentioned social media purges, these attempts to maintain control of the narrative appear to be the last breath of a dinosaur media going extinct. At a point which, if not for the state facilitated assets of Silicon Valley (Big Tech) keeping this industry alive, it would be all but obsolete already.

Despite years of intertwining infrastructure — From the Pentagon’s Information Operations Roadmap, a 2003 project designed to seize control of the net for use in information warfare and psychological operations; To covert programs such as 2010’s Operation Earnest Voice, used to disseminate pro-US propaganda throughout social media via an astroturfing campaign of “sock puppet” accounts. These attempts to influence the new age of digital media persist as they did in the age of traditional media, using much of the same tactics.

Even now, despite the storied entanglement of corporate technocrats and the bureaucracy — Established ties between the Pentagon and companies like Facebook psychologically abusing their users paving the way — The masses appear to be tuning out the “authoritative” voices that they are now aware are no longer trustworthy.

Others however remain hopelessly inured under the scope of these projects. Ever influenced by the degrading psychological implications of propaganda operations directing the Hegelian dialectic.

IN CONCLUSION.

It’s not hard to see why the promulgation of inauthentic information is such a prevailing issue. It’s used for everything from selling us overpriced goods at the store, to dividing us against our neighbors, to convincing us to support unnecessary wars that kill millions of innocent people. And when understanding the psychology behind such deceptions, it is easy to recognize why its purveyors negate responsibility for their own wrongdoing by projecting it upon their opposition.

Whereas certain biases are concerned this could be true in either case of the mainstream or the alternative; and why critical thinking and discernment are of the utmost importance for the individual to be their own arbiter of truth. It is an essential tool, upon the altar of free humanity to never allow any entity, institution, or individual; whether they be mainstream or alternative, to have so much influence over one’s mind that they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Now more than ever the need for people to reclaim their emancipated intellectual sovereignty is paramount. In the age of information ignorance truly is a choice. False dichotomies begin and end with the information that we choose to ingest.

The old cliché is true that knowledge is power. We as people, as a society and a species, can only begin to reclaim our individuality and begin to work towards a better tomorrow once we have become conscious and aware of this most pertinent of truths.

When writing for The Free Thought Project, as well as for Break The Matrix, the real-life version of “the matrix” itself can probably be most astutely described as a false sense of reality —

“In the real world, outside of its cinematic counterpart, The Matrix is a construct. Made up of a false set of perceptions manufactured and perpetuated by an establishment to maintain supremacy, control, & dominance over the psyche of the masses. It is, quite literally, a fabricated version of how the world operates. Created by believing a web of lies woven by a fraudulent, corrupt system of power-hungry maniacs. Exposing their fallacies causes it to malfunction. Every time you speak the truth it causes a glitch in the matrix. When you live that truth, you break the matrix”.

The post How Truth was Destroyed So Americans Would Crave Propaganda first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
agenda attacks benjamin netanyahu Colonial Pipeline darkness diesel doom and gloom food shortages food supply fuel gas stations gasoline Gaza global events Headline News IDF inflation Intelwars ISRAEL Israeli Defense Nightmare order ab chao order out of chaos Orwellian rockets tel aviv Violence War

Do You Get The Feeling That Events Happening Now Are Leading Us Into An Endless Global Nightmare?

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

2021 was supposed to be the year that life went back to normal.  Obviously, that is not happening, and so a lot of prominent voices out there are going to be forced to update their narratives.  Global events have really started to accelerate, and so many of the things that the “doom and gloomers” have been warning about are starting to happen right in front of our eyes.

For example, on my websites, I have been talking about Israel a lot in recent months, and now it appears that the region is on the brink of war.  So far, more than 700 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, but by the time you read this article, that number will probably be even higher.  In response, the IDF has conducted a series of dramatic strikes inside Gaza, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promising “to attack harder and increase the pace of attacks”

‘Hamas will be hit in ways that it does not expect,’ Netanyahu said. ‘We have eliminated commanders, hit many important targets and we have decided to attack harder and increase the pace of attacks.’

Joe Biden and other world leaders are begging for peace, but neither side appears to be inclined to back down.

Every time Israel retaliates, Hamas just launches even more rockets at Israeli cities, and they are insisting that this is their “right”

“We have the right to respond to the Israeli offensive and protect the interests of our people as long as the Israeli occupation continues the escalation,” Hamas said in a statement.

So here we go.

As I discussed yesterday, this situation has the potential to get wildly out of control very rapidly.

On Tuesday, the skies above Tel Aviv looked like something out of a science fiction movie as Israel’s Iron Dome intercepted countless incoming rockets from Gaza.  Could you imagine living in fear that a rocket could explode right next to you at any moment?

If that was happening in this country, millions of Americans would be screaming for Biden to nuke somebody.

Meanwhile, the Colonial Pipeline cyberattack has caused massive gasoline shortages up and down the east coast of the United States.  On Tuesday evening, the Drudge Report breathlessly declared that more than 1,000 gas stations had run out of gasoline, and Zero Hedge was reporting that some people were waiting in line for up to five hours in a desperate attempt to fill up their vehicles.

Up until recently, just about the only thing that we were missing from the economy of the 1970s was the long gas lines, but now here we are.

North America’s largest petroleum pipeline has been shut down for just a few days, and now much of the southeastern quadrant of the country is absolutely paralyzed.

Do you think that there is a lesson to be learned here?

Of course, there is.  Once again we see how incredibly vulnerable we are to any sort of a major disruption.  If the unprecedented power grid failure in Texas a few months ago was not enough of a wake-up call for you, this definitely should be.

At this point, we are being told it is uncertain whether or not the Colonial Pipeline will be able to restore operations by this weekend…

If the Colonial Pipeline is not back in business by the weekend, prices could continue to rise at the pump and there will be broader localized fuel shortages across the southeast and mid-Atlantic regions.

Eventually, the flow of gasoline will be restored and everyone along the east coast will be able to fill up their vehicles again.

But the crazy inflation that we are witnessing right is not going to go away.

For years, economic “doom and gloomers” have been warning that if we kept recklessly creating, borrowing, and spending money that really bad things would happen.

How many times have we heard about “the death of the dollar” and the dangers of wildly inflating our currency?

Well, it turns out that the “doom and gloomers” were dead-on accurate.  Inflation is one of the biggest stories of 2021 so far, and we just got another confirmation of how bad things are getting out there…

The median price for a single-family home in the U.S. rose the most on record in the first quarter, as buyers fought over a dearth of inventory, according to the National Association of Realtors.

Prices jumped 16.2% from a year earlier to a record high of $319,200. The growth eclipsed the 14.8% rate in the fourth quarter, which was the highest in data going back to 1989, the group said in a report Tuesday.

But at least home prices are not rising as fast as the price of cotton is.

If you can believe it, the price of cotton is up more than 50 percent over the past year.

Of course the price of corn is rising even more rapidly.  As I discussed the other day, the price of corn is up about 50 percent just since the turn of the year.

Needless to say, lumber still has everyone else beat.  The price of lumber has actually risen more than 200 percent over the past 12 months.

A lot of comparisons have been made to the horrible inflation that the U.S. experienced during the 1970s, but really I think that we need to go all the way back to the 1930s for a more accurate parallel to our current situation.

At this point, we are becoming more like the Weimar Republic with each passing day.

But if you think that things are really bad now, just wait, because you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Everywhere you look, systems are failing, society is crumbling and evil is growing.  Even the Secret Service, who are supposed to be the best of the best, are now plagued by endless scandals and widespread incompetence.

This is not a drill.  A widespread societal collapse is now underway, and it is going to get progressively worse.

This is the time of our endless nightmare, but nobody is going to ever be allowed to wake up from it.

***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 Do You Get The Feeling That Events Happening Now Are Leading Us Into An Endless Global Nightmare? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
airstrikes Antony blinken attacks democracy is mob rule full scale war Gaza stripe government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Iron Dome ISRAEL Lod MIDDLE EAST militants missile defense system PALESTINE rockets ruling class tel aviv UN Violence wake up War

Chances Of War Increase: Israel And Palestine Violence Has Reached A Boiling Point

Rockets are launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israel, Monday, May. 10, 2021. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

The violence raging in Israel and Palestine has reached a boiling point. Violence and attacks between Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli military have escalated significantly, with the United Nations now fearing a “full-scale war.”

More than 1,000 rockets have now been fired by Palestinian militants over 38 hours, Israel said, most at Tel Aviv. Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes, destroying two tower blocks in Gaza on Tuesday and Wednesday, according to a report by the BBC. 

The ongoing violence is a huge concern for a global populace on the precipice of a major conflict. Israeli Arabs have staged violent protests in a number of Israeli towns. Lod near Tel Aviv has been put under a state of emergency.

Fady Hanona, a journalist in Gaza City, tweeted a video he said showed explosion after explosion in Gaza on Wednesday morning.

“What is happening is unbelievable,” he said. “What we experienced this morning was more war than what we lived during the last three wars.”

The international community has urged both sides to end the escalation, amid concerns it could spiral out of control. The UN’s Middle East peace envoy, Tor Wennesland, said the sides were “escalating towards a full-scale war.” -BBC

And the rulers in the United States have to chime in with their push toward keeping people locked in the idea of mob rule (democracy.)

Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz said the Israeli strikes were “just the beginning.” “Terror organizations have been hit hard and will continue to be hit because of their decision to hit Israel,” he said. “We’ll return peace and quiet, for the long term.”

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said in a televised address: “If [Israel] wants to escalate, we are ready for it, and if it wants to stop, we’re also ready.”

Hopefully, full-scale war does not break out.  But unfortunately, it looks like all sides are ready and almost desiring a war. At the moment, the consensus is that both Israel and Hamas are ramping up their rhetoric as well as continuing missile and rocket strikes.

The post Chances Of War Increase: Israel And Palestine Violence Has Reached A Boiling Point first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Civilians CONFLICT entire glove gaza strip government is slavery Hamas Headline News hezbollah injuries Intelwars Iran Israeli Jerusalem Missiles Palestinians Prepare rockets rockets launched Temple Mount Violence war is a racket war on us Wars

Could The Wildly Out Of Control Violence In Jerusalem Spark A Major Regional War In The Middle East?

This article was originally published by Micahel Snyder at The End of the American Dream. 

Rockets are launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israel, Monday, May. 10, 2021. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

Things have been getting tenser in Jerusalem for weeks, and Monday was the day when tensions really started to boil over.  The violence that we witnessed in the streets of Jerusalem shocked the entire globe, and it threatens to spark a major regional conflict.

At one point, a tree that had been set on fire on the Temple Mount was burning wildly out of control, and that was a perfect metaphor for the emotions that we witnessed on both sides.  As a result of multiple violent clashes, over 300 Palestinians and an undisclosed number of Israelis ended up with injuries

Though the past week has seen hundreds of Palestinians and Israeli police officers and civilians injured, the defense establishment still thought that the situation could have returned to normal.

But that was wishful thinking.

More than 300 Palestinians and several Israelis were injured in clashes with police officers on Monday in violence that the city has not seen in years.

In response to the chaos in Jerusalem, Hamas fired more than 160 rockets into Israel, and the IDF responded by striking several targets in the Gaza strip.  The following comes from the Jerusalem Post

The IDF warned Hamas that all options, including a ground operation, were on the table after over 160 rockets were fired towards Jerusalem and southern Israel as thousands of Israelis were parading through downtown to celebrate Jerusalem Day.

Following the rocket fire, the Israel Air Force carried out several strikes in Gaza, killing at least 8 Hamas militants and targeting rocket launchers and two military positions. Palestinian media reported that 20 people had been killed including nine children and another 95 wounded.

We haven’t seen hostilities in the region reach this level in a long, long time.

Politicians around the globe are crying out for peace to be restored, but the leader of Hamas is indicating that more violence may be coming

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Monday night that “Jerusalem has called and Gaza has responded. We will continue as long as Israel does not stop the aggression and terrorism in Jerusalem and at the al-Aqsa Mosque.”

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is publicly warning that “the current conflict could continue for some time”

“We are in a fight on several fronts: Jerusalem, Gaza and elsewhere in the country. This evening, on Jerusalem Day, the terrorist organizations in Gaza have crossed a red line and attacked us with missiles in the outskirts of Jerusalem,” Netanyahu said at a ceremony at Ammunition Hill to mark Jerusalem Day.

Netanyahu also said that while Israel does not seek an intensification of hostilities, “the current conflict could continue for some time.”

So what does that mean?

Could Netanyahu actually send troops into Gaza?

If that happens, that could spark a full-blown regional war.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are no match for the IDF, but they would fight with everything that they have got and they are certainly capable of launching thousands of rockets toward Israel.

However, if Hezbollah decided to jump in and attack from the north, that would take the conflict to an entirely different level.

Right now, Hezbollah has 150,000 missiles pointed at Israel, and those missiles could do some very serious damage.  At this point, Beirut is absolutely teeming with Fateh 110 rockets that have the range to hit Tel Aviv

Further north, in Beirut, is Hezbollah’s central headquarters, and the city area is packed with Iranian and Syrian-made Fateh 110 rockets that can reach greater Tel Aviv. It is here that Hezbollah is trying to turn some of those rockets into precision-guided missiles.

Precision-guided missiles are not like the unsophisticated rockets that Hamas lobs toward Israel.  It is being reported that such missiles “can strike targets within an accuracy of a 5-meter diameter”.

And of course, if Hezbollah goes to war with Israel, there is always a possibility that Iran may decide to take more direct action against Israel as well.

The Iranians typically don’t like to attack anyone directly, but they could certainly use proxies other than Hezbollah to hit Israel with conventional or unconventional weapons.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and the Biden administration is currently attempting to “de-escalate” the situation…

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Hamas must end the rocket attacks “immediately”, adding: “All sides need to de-escalate.”

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki echoed those calls, saying US President Joe Biden was seriously concerned about the violence.

Unfortunately, at this point, Biden’s words don’t exactly carry too much weight in the region.

And I think that it is an ominous sign that cities all over Israel began to open their bomb shelters late on Monday night

The Tel Aviv Municipality sent an urgent message to all residents late Monday night that all citywide bomb shelters will be reopened.

The cities of Givatayim, Ramat Gan and Bnei Brak have made similar announcements.

By the time you read this article, events may have escalated even more.  Things are moving very rapidly in the region, and there is a very real danger that a “point of no return” may soon be crossed.

Unfortunately, whether it happens now or later, a major war in the Middle East is inevitably coming.

Israel, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Iran have all been preparing for such a war for decades, and when it finally arrives the death and destruction it will cause will stun the entire planet.

So let us hope that it can be put off for as long as possible.

But right now the anger on both sides has reached a boiling point, and missiles are already flying.

In the age of social media, a major event that happens on one side of the globe can go viral on the other side of the globe just moments later.  This free flow of information can be a very good thing, but it can also inflame tensions when millions (or billions) of people around the world are focusing on a single crisis point all at once.

Over the next few days, the eyes of the world will be on Jerusalem, and one false move could spark a major war.

Let us pray that it does not happen right now, but at some point all of the sand will finally run out of the hourglass.

***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 Could The Wildly Out Of Control Violence In Jerusalem Spark A Major Regional War In The Middle East? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Intelwars israelis Kristallnacht Palestinians rockets Violence

‘This is Kristallnacht’: Palestinians continue attacks on Israelis with rockets, street violence

Hamas militants continued their barrage of rocket fire at Israel on Tuesday, and the violence escalated in the streets to the point that the mayor of one Israeli town called for help and likened the attacks to the Nazi pogrom against German Jews, declaring: “This is Kristallnacht.”

What are the details?

The mayor of the central Israeli city of Lod called for the nation’s prime minister to declare a state of emergency amid attacks by “Islamists,” The Times of Israel reported.

“This is Kristallnacht in Lod,” said Mayor Yair Revivo. “I have called on the prime minister to declare a state of emergency in Lod. To call in the [Israel Defense Forces]. To impose a curfew. To restore quiet… There is a failure of governance… This is a giant incident — an Intifada of Arab Israelis. All the work we have done here for years [on coexistence] has gone down the drain.”

Revivo went on to say:

“All of Israel should know, this is a complete loss of control… This is unthinkable. Synagogues are being burned. Hundreds of cars set alight. Hundreds of Arab thugs are roaming the streets… Civil war has erupted in Lod… The Orthodox-nationalist community here has guns. I’m imploring them to go back home but they understandably want to protect their homes. Petrol bombs are being thrown into [Jewish] homes. The situation is incendiary.”

The New York Post reported that Hamas fired 130 rockets Tuesday just at the city of Tel Aviv alone — which has a population of nearly half a million people.

Video posted online shows Israel’s Iron Dome defense system intercepting the rockets. Newsmax foreign correspondant Alex Salvi tweeted of the footage, “Imagine the carnage if these ?150 rockets landed in Tel Aviv (population of 450,000).”

But Israel has been fighting back. The IDF announced Tuesday that they “killed the commander of the Hamas anti-tank missile unit, Iyad Fathi Faik Sharir,” who “was in charge of carrying out anti-tank missile attacks on Israel.”

The IDF added, “Our aircraft are currently striking additional terror targets in Gaza.”

Reuters reported that over the past two days, 30 Palestinians (including children) and three Israelis (all women) have been killed in the attacks from both sides.

Anything else?

Meanwhile, the escalation overseas has poured over into the U.S. Videos circulated online Tuesday afternoon showing fights breaking out in New York City between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine protestors over the conflict.

Share
Categories
Elderly woman attacked Grandmother punched Intelwars Margaret street Violence violent crime

Grandmother dies after being punched in the face by a 23-year-old. Her grieving brother says he has ‘no earthly idea why’ it happened.

A 23-year-old man has been charged with manslaughter after fatally punching an elderly woman in the face last month in New Orleans, leaving the victim’s family questioning what motivated the brutal attack.

“We have no earthly idea why this happened,” Jeffrey Johnson, brother of 61-year-old Margaret “Jane” Street, told the New Orleans Advocate on Wednesday. “It won’t bring my sister back, but it helps knowing who did it and that they have him.”

The New Orleans Police Department reported Tuesday that Jeremiah Mark struck Street with a closed fist in the city’s French Quarter on April 19, causing her to fall to the ground and hit her head on the concrete. Street suffered a traumatic brain injury from the attack and later died at the hospital.

The two were reportedly engaged in some kind of argument when the crime was committed, the Advocate noted, though the outlet said details about the dispute were not provided in a sworn police statement filed in court.

The incident was originally classified as a simple battery, but following Street’s death and an autopsy, authorities changed the classification to a homicide.

After positively identifying a suspect, authorities released a photo of him to the public, prompting Mark to come forward about his involvement in the altercation. Mark turned himself in to police on April 22, reportedly confirming to police that “he used his hand to push [Street] in the face.”

He has been charged with manslaughter and, if convicted, could serve up to 40 years in prison.

Street’s family held a funeral for her on Thursday in her hometown of Decatur, Alabama. Her obituary noted that she retired from a job at General Motors and is survived by a daughter and two grandchildren.

Johnson, Street’s brother, told the Advocate that he fears his sister’s death was the result of a robbery gone wrong.

“It just seems like she was at the wrong place at the wrong time,” he said.

Share
Categories
Chauvin trial house democrats Intelwars Maxine Waters Peter cahill Protests Violence

Report: Democrats are ‘so angry’ with Rep. Maxine Waters they would support censure effort against her

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is not only facing backlash from Republicans and Judge Peter Cahill for her incendiary comments related to the Derek Chauvin trial, but she also reportedly angered her Democratic colleagues.

The development comes after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) vowed to censure Waters.

What are the details?

According to Fox News reporter Chad Pergram, Democrats found Waters’ comments “revolting” and there is “disgust” among the House Democratic caucus, which “metastasized” after Cahill publicly rebuked Waters.

“Congressional Democrats have a major problem with House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and her ‘confrontational’ comments in Minnesota over the weekend,” Pergram reported. “Fox is told that rank-and-file Democrats found what Waters said revolting. But that disgust among Democrats further metastasized after Hennepin, MN County Judge Peter Cahill criticized Waters from the bench, describing her remarks as ‘disrespectful to the rule of law.’

In fact, some Democrats would reportedly support an effort to discipline Waters with a formal censure, Pergram reported.

But Fox is told that a lot of Democrats are angry at Waters, are concerned about the optics of potential violence being linked back to her and Democrats generally. Don’t forget how many moderate Democrats were beside themselves following the midterms and the “defund the police” movement.

With such a narrow majority, Democrats can only lose two votes on their side.

Fox is told that some Democrats could in fact support what one lawmaker termed a “reasonably worded” censure resolution to rebuke Waters. Plus, voting to punish Waters may well be good politics for some battleground district Democrats. One knowledgeable Democrat told Fox that some Democratic members are so angry at Waters now that they would relish the opportunity to censure her.

What is the background?

Over the weekend, Waters urged protesters in Minnesota to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin is found not guilty in the death of George Floyd.

“You got to make sure that they know we mean business,” Waters said, also openly dismissing the curfew enacted by law enforcement.

In response, Judge Cahill, who is presiding over the Chauvin trial, blasted Waters, and said her comments could be used by the defense in an appeal to argue for a mistrial.

“I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned,” Cahill said after denying the defense’s motion for a mistrial over Waters’ remarks.

“This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function,” the judge added. “I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government.”

“Their failure to do so is abhorrent!” he said.

What did Pelosi say?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) outright dismissed criticism, and even defended Waters.

“No, I don’t think she should apologize,” Pelosi said Monday.

“Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the Civil Rights movement. I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They’ve handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side,” Pelosi explained.

Share
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