fox files

“In summary, we have highlighted the pitfalls of having considered until now COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as just conventional vaccines, and we have indicated the preclinical, clinical and post-marketing safety assessments that are most urgently needed. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are actually pharmaceutical drugs, and consequently their pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and possibly also their pharmacogenetics, must be properly characterized to provide a solid background of knowledge for their rational and targeted use, thus stopping ‘playing dice’ with these products due to the misbelief that the same vaccine at the same dose is good for everyone, and that adverse effects occur just by chance.”

Those were the words of Italian researchers in a recent pharmacological analysis of the COVID shots published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences nearly two years after these products were foisted upon 5.35 billion human beings – often multiple times – under the false pretense of the jabs acting like vaccines. Who will be held accountable?

Every day, news pours out about the lack of safety and ineffectiveness of the shots, but they fail to move the needle on policy. It is unclear what it will take to get these biological agents pulled from the market, but here are some of the most recent bombshells proving the shots are extremely unsafe and ineffective:

Autopsy shows extensive brain and heart damage: Nearly two years into this mass genocide, global governments have refused to conduct widespread autopsies on those who died suddenly shortly after getting the shots. They have also rebuffed calls to release the data and analysis on those autopsies they did conduct. One can only imagine what we would learn about the extent of the danger, but now we have a glimpse from an autopsy of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease who died three weeks after receiving a third dose. The case study published by German pathologists in the prestigious journal “Vaccines” found severe inflammation in the brain tissue and heart attributable to the shots.

The pathologists used immunohistochemistry, which utilizes staining techniques to light up only specific antigens, in this case only the spike protein native to the shots, not the nucleocapsid protein from the virus. What did they find?

“However, histopathological analyses of the brain uncovered previously unsuspected findings, including acute vasculitis (predominantly lymphocytic) as well as multifocal necrotizing encephalitis of unknown etiology with pronounced inflammation including glial and lymphocytic reaction. In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present” (emphasis added).

Importantly, they only found spike antibodies without any nucleocapsid antibodies, meaning that this individual was only exposed to the shots, not to the actual virus. Until now, many pharma apologists blamed the rash of sudden encephalitis and myocarditis cases on the virus, but as the authors note, “The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.”

Although he died following his third shot in December 2021, interestingly, the man already “experienced pronounced cardiovascular side effects, for which he repeatedly had to consult his doctor,” after his first shot (AstraZeneca) in May 2021 and “increased anxiety, lethargy, and social withdrawal” after his second shot (Pfizer) in July 2021. He seemed to decline rapidly even before the third shot, suffering “severe motor impairment and a recurrent need for wheelchair support.” The man in the study “never fully recovered” from the shots by the time he got his booster in December.

Two weeks after the third vaccination, he “suddenly collapsed while eating dinner” without “coughing or any signs of food aspiration.” If not for his family paying for an autopsy, we would not have this information about a cause of death that likely occurred in countless thousands of other young and old vaccinated people.

With findings like this, how can every case of a sudden death post-vaccination not be immediately investigated with pathology to determine if this phenomenon is occurring in a significant portion of the population? Where is the emergency to get ahead of this and detect, diagnose, and treat people before it’s too late? After all, only 5.3 billion people are potentially affected.

Negative efficacy galore: Imagine engaging in societal apartheid and persecuting those who didn’t get the jabs on the assumption that they are spreaders of disease but then discovering that, in fact, the opposite is true? I’ve been reporting on negative efficacy for over a year already, but now we have a Kaiser Permanganate study that shows negative efficacy of the shots against all variants within 150 days. And this study shows the more you inject, the more you infect; specifically, over time, those with three doses fare worse than those with two.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons posted a Twitter thread with numerous studies published throughout the past year showing a similar trend of negative efficacy resulting from the shots.

\u201cThis is the latest in a string of studies that report COVID vaccine effectiveness (VE) wanes into negative territory. Here are some of the others. \ud83e\uddf5 1/\u201d

— AssocAmerPhys&Surg (@AssocAmerPhys&Surg) 1664751814

One of the likely culprits for negative efficacy is that the shots prime the body to respond to a version of the virus that has long since changed, thereby making the natural immune response misfire. Supporters of endless jabs will suggest that this is why they created the new bivalent shot for BA.5 (the one that was studied in eight mice and no humans). However, an entirely new variant is already surging, rendering this shot just as irrelevant and likely counterproductive. According to the CDC, BA.4.6 now represents 13% of all COVID-19 cases and is rising sharply, with some other variants breaking out as well.

Negative efficacy even against death: Well, at least the shots still work against critical illness, right? Wrong! Deaths have largely plummeted across all groups given that Omicron is not nearly as pathogenic as the previous versions of the virus, but data continues to show the overwhelming number of deaths to be among the vaccinated. It turns out that in the month of June, 92% of all COVID deaths in Canada were among the vaccinated, even though they composed a slightly smaller share of the population (85%). Even more telling is the fact that 81% of the deaths were among those who had three or more doses, even though those individuals only account for 34% of the population.

Neonatal deaths: Remember when Scotland suffered a sudden rash of neonatal deaths last September? At the time, 21 newborns had died in a month, triggering an investigation because the numbers rose above an upper control limit for the first time in four years. Neonatal deaths hit 4.9 per 1,000 live births, on a par with levels that were last seen in the late 1980s. This was an astounding phenomenon, yet the investigation yielded no cause other than disproving COVID as a culprit. But notice that the COVID shots were never investigated. Well, now the data is triggering another investigation, as at least 18 newborns died within four weeks of birth during the month of March 2022, the equivalent of 4.6 per 1,000 births. Here is the trend line from Public Health Scotland:

Notice the spikes above baseline beginning right around the beginning of 2021 and accelerating in two peaks later on. What major biological product was mass-distributed around that time? Obviously this alone doesn’t prove any causation, but the fact that we know the spike protein goes into the reproductive system and breast milk, menstrual irregularities are ubiquitous, so many countries are experiencing record low birth rates around the same time, and these shots are otherwise extremely inflammatory in the adult population, wouldn’t you think there would be some interest in investigating the shots as a potential suspect?

Just how bad are the menstrual and gynecological problems? One recent survey of 6,049 women from May 16, 2021, through December 31, 2021, right after most young women got the shot, found 292, or 4.8%, of the respondents self-reported a case of decidual cast shedding (DCS). DCS is a rare gynecological disorder in which a woman sheds her entire uterine lining intact through the vaginal canal as if she were having menstrual bleeding. It is so rare that the authors of this paper could only find 40 documented cases in 109 years.

It’s not like the government doesn’t have blaring and glaring safety signals on reproductive health, either. As of late September, there were 5,055 miscarriages reported to VAERS and 11,598 instances of vaginal/uterine hemorrhaging. Remember, miscarriages are extremely hard to pin on the vaccine, so the fact that so many felt they could report it demonstrates there is likely a woeful underreporting rate. While none of this directly proves the shots are primarily responsible for the neonatal deaths, it would be ludicrous not to carefully investigate them as a culprit.

Other countries experienced this problem as well. In Iceland, deaths among infants doubled in 2021 from the baseline level of the preceding nine years. Several Israeli hospitals saw similar trends in stillbirths and miscarriages.

Adverse events in nursing babies: We already know that the therapeutic can pass through the mother’s milk from lactating women who get the shots. Now, a new study published in JAMA, which was bizarrely designed to make the shots look safe, actually reveals that 3.5% of the women reported a decrease in breast milk supply and 1.2% reported “issues with their breastmilk-fed infant after vaccination.” They decline to describe the nature of those issues, but the fact that they can so casually report this as if these numbers are good news is shocking.

Keep in mind that the swine flu vaccine was pulled from the market in 1976 after 1 in 100,000 experienced Guillain-Barre syndrome. The fact that these shots could be forced down people’s throats, including pregnant and nursing women, after such relatively high percentages of adverse events defies logic.

Yet it’s now clear the medical community and the government knew this shot was problematic from day one. Already in early February 2021, a local Fox affiliate in Salt Lake City reported that the Society of Breast Imaging rolled out a new protocol for women to wait for mammograms after getting the shots after they discovered 11% of those who got Moderna’s first dose and 16% after the second dose experienced inflamed lymph nodes. They knew such a high percentage of hyperinflammation is abnormal and portends trouble, particularly for breast cancer and lymphoma, yet they simply pushed off mammograms rather than raising the alarm about the cause of the inflammation. No wonder the Pfizer CEO declined to appear before an EU parliamentary hearing on the shots. There’s an endless litany of crimes against humanity he must answer for. But what is our excuse for not holding all the people in government and medicine accountable in the U.S.? One could have feigned ignorance in early 2021, but now we are light-years past the threshold for willful misconduct. How much longer will we allow the government to “roll the dice” with the lives of all humanity and even their future offspring?

Nobody ever accused economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University of being a radical libertarian or indeed a radical anything. He is a comfortable member of the Establishment.

But even he can’t stomach the “Russia blew up its own pipelines” absurdity that nobody in the world except U.S. television viewers believes.

In a recent television broadcast, Sachs stunned his regime mouthpiece hosts when he said:

I was attacked in the Atlantic for being on the side of peace. And I confess I’m on the side of peace. I am very worried that we are on a path of escalation to nuclear war, nothing less than that. We have essentially a war in which Russia feels that this war is at the core of its security interests. The United States insists that it will do anything to support Ukraine’s defeat of Russia. Russia views this as a proxy war with the United States. And whatever one thinks about this, this is a path of extraordinarily dangerous escalation. And I am very fearful….

A lot of the world is watching the events in horror and a lot of the world doesn’t like this NATO expansion, which they interpret as at the core of this. They want to see compromise between the US and Russia in vote after vote in the United Nations. Basically, it’s been the Western countries that have been voting for sanctions and denunciations and other actions, whereas most of the world, certainly most of the world counted by population, is on the sidelines.

They just view this as a horrible clash between Russia and the United States. They don’t view this, as we describe it in the media, as an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine. Anyone in the United States, they’d say, well, what else is it? But that’s because the way that our media have been reporting; this conflict [actually] goes back a long time.

It didn’t start on February 24th, 2022. In fact, the war itself started in 2014, not in 2022. And even that had antecedents. And so most of the world doesn’t see it the way we describe it. But most of the world is just terrified right now, frankly, because it’s unbelievable to be hearing only one side, Well, we’ll use nuclear weapons if we need to, and the other side saying, no, you can’t frighten us….

Europe is in a very, very sharp economic downturn. The sharp decline of output and living standards also shows up as a rise of prices. But the main fact is that the European economy is getting hammered by the sudden cutoff of energy. And now to make it definitive, the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, which I would bet was a US action, perhaps US and Poland.

One of the anchors demands his evidence for this claim. Sachs replies:

Well, first of all, there’s direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk, were circling over this area. We also had the threats from the United States earlier this year that one way or another we are going to end Nord Stream. We also have a remarkable statement by Secretary Blinken last Friday in a press conference [in which he said] this is also a tremendous opportunity. That’s a strange way to talk if you’re worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance.

I know this runs counter to our narrative. You’re not allowed to say things like that in the West. But the fact of the matter is, all over the world, people are thinking the US did it. And by the way, even reporters in many of the involved papers are privately thinking that as well.

What Sachs is saying is eminently sensible, but we have an American public raised on conformity and compliance (thank you, government schools), so anyone dissenting from the Establishment-supplied narrative is automatically demonized.

I assure you, Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell and the CIA are not your friends. I promise that to you.

This is seriously the most bizarre case of Stockholm Syndrome of all time.

If we could educate people in a way that doesn’t portray the ruling class as wonderful geniuses looking out for our welfare, maybe we wouldn’t be so cavalier about nuclear war, and maybe we wouldn’t be so inclined to accept whatever line CNN shoves down our gullets, dismissing everyone else as traitors.

Hurricane Ian may have spared many neighborhoods, but the climate-change propaganda surrounding it has the potential to do enormous damage. Michael Shellenberger, author of Apocalypse Never, just released an excellent thread on it: Over the last week, the mainstream news media claimed that hurricanes are becoming more frequent and intense, but they’re not, as the data clearly show. What’s more, it’s clear that the media are engaging in deliberate misinformation. These aren’t innocent mistakes. [A recent] article in the Financial Times [claims] that “hurricane frequency is on the rise,” based on NOAA data. But NOAA says, “After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts.” In fact, NOAA writes, “The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.” In other words, the graphic the Financial Times chose to show of apparently rising hurricane frequency is, in reality, a graphic showing improved hurricane detection thanks to satellites. What are the chances that Financial Times reporter Aime Williams didn’t know this? I would guess close to zero. It’s possible that Williams was careless but I doubt it. I would bet good money that she read NOAA’s web site, which clearly warns that “there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts,” and chose to ignore it in order to sensationalize. What about intensity? Same story. Writes NOAA, “After adjusting for changes in observing capabilities (limited ship observations) in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.” Bottom line? “We conclude that the data do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.” Against the best available science, the news media unleashed a hurricane of misinformation using the exact same manipulation of data as Aime Williams. The quantity of pseudoscience and journalistic irresponsibility is breathtaking. For example:

Again Shellenberger: And now it’s clear that activist scientists at the UN are working with Google to control the information available on climate change. This is dark, chilling stuff. (Here Shellenberger is referring to a recent news item in which the UN Secretary for Global Communications says they “own the science” on “climate change,” and that thanks to their partnership with Google, dissident voices are being pushed down in search results.) To the extent the cost of hurricanes is rising it’s due entirely to greater wealth in harm’s way. Consider how much more developed Miami Beach is today compared to a century ago. Once you adjust for rising wealth, there is no trend of rising costs. Is it possible that hurricane intensity will rise in the future? Yes. NOAA predicts a 5% increase in hurricane intensity. But it also predicts a 25% decline in hurricane frequency. I have not seen a single mainstream news media outlet mention any of this. This is not complicated. The information is not hidden away somewhere. NOAA even boldfaces its key conclusion. Journalists know this. They’ve been covering this for decades. It’s clear that they are actively trying to mislead the public. We all remember a time when “climate change” talk was an annoyance but had few real-world consequences. Now it’s everywhere, and the real-world consequences are frankly deadly, especially for the developing world. The stuff about the truth being suppressed in search results is especially disturbing and people must wake up to this disturbing reality of the press embellishing and lying at every opportunity to serve their god the underlying almighty dollar.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education awarded a coveted blue ribbon of excellence to Rota Elementary School, which serves children of military service members abroad in Spain. The DOE singled out Rota’s commitment to “families and educators work[ing] together in partnership.” But the “partnership” between teachers and parents that the DOE praises has a weird twist, as it appears to be rooted in keeping parents in the dark about classroom activities.

According to Rota teacher Genevieve Chavez, elementary school is the “ideal time” to introduce children to gender identity ideology because “kids as young as four years old are already starting to develop a stable understanding of their gender identity.” And once they hit middle school, according to Chavez, Rota will keep students’ alternative gender identities secret from their “unsafe” parents. So much for “families and educators work[ing] together in partnership.”

Chavez’s comments were part of the Department of Defense Education Activity’s (DoDEA) 2021 “Equity and Access Summit” video, which was the basis for Claremont’s recent report “Grooming Future Revolutionaries: Woke Indoctrination at K-12 Schools on America’s Military Bases.” The report covered how schools serving children of service members are peddling critical race theory, white-shaming, queer theory, and leftist activism to children. After the report was published, the videos were hidden from public view. But one aspect of DoDEA’s “Equity” agenda deserves further emphasis: the bizarre cruelty of the pedagogical practices that estrange children from their parents.

One practice highlighted in the conference was the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Let’s Talk!” toolkit, which encourages “critical conversations” that promote “intersectionality” and discuss “the ways that injustice affects our lives and society.” The “Let’s Talk!” toolkit prepares teachers for the inevitable moment when this exercise makes their students break down and cry. Normal pedagogical practice in America post-Dewey tends to avoid lesson plans that predictably result in tears.

But not under an “Equity” framework. Just as military bootcamps promise to break down recruits’ individuality to rebuild them as members of a corps, “Equity” pedagogy will decompose a student’s worldview to impose a new one. The Equity and Access Summit suggests that students and teachers can swear an oath to their new god. “My name is ____,” the program proposes, “and I have been impacted by systemic discrimination in society, and am committed to a lifelong journey of dismantling my own bias(es). I strive to thrive in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion every day!”

For the teachers at the summit, a key tool to re-orienting students’ souls to embrace DEI ideology was Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). In an exercise aptly called “crossing the line,” teacher Michelle Nipper explained that SEL can provide opportunities for “vulnerability” and “trust-building.” Students line up on one side of the room and take a step forward when the teacher prompt applies. The prompts range from silly to invasively serious, from “You like Fruity Pebbles,” to “You know someone who was thought about or attempted suicide,” and “You know someone affected by alcoholism.” Nipper also suggests asking students daily SEL questions, ranging from “What’s your favorite winter activity?” to “What does it mean to have a crush?” and, most importantly, “What is something your parents don’t know about you?”

One presenter emphasized the importance of gathering copious data for “Social and Emotional Wellness,” including daily “wellness check-ins” that would be stored and monitored over time to “see trends” in the emotional states of children and classrooms; another eagerly awaits the day that schools could use a brain-imaging device to see “objective data” from inside students’ minds. Data collected on students would be stored in perpetuity; parental consent to this brave new world was not addressed as an important concern.

Nor are families necessarily to be informed that some teachers are working to redefine the family itself. As one teacher, Ashley Kelley, put it “We don’t want to make them feel like family has this very nuclear, traditional sense … we wanted them to understand that family doesn’t mean we share blood, family means we share love.” And when “love” can be redefined in political terms to mean anything, then “family” is up for grabs.

We cannot say on the basis of these videos alone how widespread this ideological mania is within schools serving the children of American military service members. But DoDEA’s schools clearly contain a radical core of teachers who are operating with the blessing of its top brass. In 2021, DoDEA leadership announced a new DEI division, stating “we must not simply celebrate diversity, equity, and inclusion, it must be actively pursued for all our students and employees. It must be a foundational premise in every aspect of our organization.”

When Republicans retake either house of Congress, a top priority should be to haul DoDEA’s leaders in front of committees, take them to task for the politicization of education, and pass a bill providing federal funding for children to opt out of DoDEA schools. But there is a broader lesson here for all American parents. More and more public schools are prioritizing “equity,” an ill-defined word that can provide space and support for the radicalization of education. School leaders must eschew this buzzword, and parents must be on guard against it, lest it transform schools from institutions that work in loco parentis—in the place of parents—into institutions that work against them.

Max Eden and Scott Yenor

All you primitive folks who think communism was evil, tsk tsk! The communists meant well!

The former political director of a state-level chapter of the Libertarian Party, which has since been recaptured by normal people, wrote this:

Someone in a Supporting Listeners group came back with this retort:

That comment alone kills him, but Woods can’t resist a few swings of his own rhetorical baseball bat.

This person’s thesis: the USSR was not evil, but simply wrong in good faith.

Now note: this same person considers Woods to be flat-out evil.

You’ve got to believe folks: Woods is not genuinely trying not to be evil. After all, here are his totals:

Famines caused by Woods: 0
Famine deaths caused by Woods: 0
Gulags opened by Woods: 0
People imprisoned in gulags by Woods: 0
Political executions by Woods: 0
Political purges by Woods: 0
Books banned by Woods: 0

Pretty good, huh?

Nope.

Woods, says our friend, is an evil, “racist,” “white supremacist” (yes, he has even said this, so we may well be dealing with outright mental illness here), and “neo-Confederate.”

But the USSR? Why, they were “wrong in good faith”!

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had a bit to say about the nature of the Soviet regime, I might add, but something tells me this person would consider Solzhenitsyn, rather than his captors, to be the evil one.

They just wanted to improve conditions for the working class, you see. Sure, they went about it the wrong way, but their motives were pure.

Do you detect a slight — slight, I say — naivete and slight of hand there?

The Bolshevik Revolution gave rise almost instantly to a one-party state with suppression of dissent, summary executions, concentration camps (with some 70,000 inmates by the time of Lenin’s death in early 1924), a concerted state campaign against religion, terror against the countryside — and on and on.

Not to mention a secret police sixteen times as large as anything the tsar had ever built.

And that’s not to mention the far worse atrocities that came later.

Hey, Ukrainians, we’re carrying out collectivization in a way that’s bound to starve millions of you to death, but honey, don’t you dare forget that our hearts are in the right place. Smooch!

Read Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest, and see what was done to those people. Then consider that an outspoken so-called libertarian, who accuses the whole world of fascism and “white supremacy” (a term that to my mind instantly discredits its user), thinks this was not an evil regime.

This is the great moral exemplar who presumes to lecture the libertarian movement.

This is the same person who said it would be a “huge stretch” to call Murray Rothbard an Austrian School economist. I’ll bet Murray Rothbard, too, is to be considered more evil than the USSR.

That’s just mind-bogglingly idiotic.

Whose price theory, production theory, interest theory, business-cycle theory, and monetary theory did Rothbard hold and promote, if not the Austrian?

Not to mention: Henry Hazlitt himself matter-of-factly described Rothbard as a member of the Austrian School, and one who in fact failed to appreciate his own significance.

Hayek, too, said Rothbard was clearly working in the Austrian tradition, as did Mises.

So we are dealing with a special kind of dumb vortex of stupid here — or someone more brilliant than Hazlitt, Hayek, and Mises. I don’t know about you, but I’m going with Option 1.

In the meantime, inside the Woods Show Elite, they have a special slicer used on arguments and claims like these — namely, the collective intelligence of the amazing folks inside.

The wickedness of communist regimes shouldn’t be a controversial issue among libertarians, now should it?

Attn.:  marc benioff

Since you’ve decided to go woke, leftist, pro-abortion, telling people to kill babies in the womb and leaving Indiana because of Christian morals, principles and moral brakes, good people and I say that’s great.  Go.  And take your politics with you.  Good riddance already. C’ya later.  They’re not gonna’ surgically attach their lips to your big ass.  

But China.  China you love.  You know.  The country with their forced abortion policies, imprisonment of muslim uyghurs, the surveillance state, political tortures and imprisonments.  Yea.  Yea, that one.

I say to anyone who does support life and real true heartbeats, marc benioff doesn’t want ‘ur business apparently and I will be certain to get that info out as far, wide and quickly as I can and having been a user of the product and others like Sage Act! and others, I have the reach to do so.  Enough to get the word out.  More than enough vehicle to do so.

Worse, while on cnn, the cartoon nut network, you speak about a state that has under Pence, enacted a religious freedom law so people can’t be attacked for their faith and be forced to do things against their religion, but YOU somehow hilariously turned that into something against your woke lgbtiqfyzgh etc., et, el sicko ‘friends’ community; notice how you did that.  not a protection against an attack against Christians.  See how you so ‘tactfully’ did that.  *Rhetorical

If you’re a person of faith and you support not killing babies in the womb, you don’t want those kind of customers.  YOU said it.  YOUR words; not mine jerkoff, er, ah, I mean benioff.  Why people would ever use your product is beyond belief.  You and your company don’t deserve their money.  At all.

Applause benioff.  Applause.  You just single-handedly showed ‘ur ass to who you really are senator.  Just a great move.  Applause.

The drama between the Wasington Post and Libs of TikTok (LoTT) is never ending. It is clear that the leftist rag wants the Twitter user to win.

Although the Bezo’s ‘news’ source is owned by Bezos, it clearly harbors a grudge. However, it’s their fault. WaPo has never recovered from the reputational damage Taylor Lorenz tried to cause to it by trying to sink it through a hit piece in which she showed up at LoTT’s homes. Lorenz continues to dig the same hole that she dug for the site.

Lorenz, for example, is still trying to sink LoTT, but she’s failing miserably. It would seem that LoTT’s editors are also having trouble controlling Lorenz. WaPo editors almost put the burden on LoTT to ensure that their reporter has accurate facts.

LoTT published a DM conversation with WaPo Silicon Valley correspondent Elizabeth Dwoskin about a Post article that mentioned a hospital which was said to have been evacuated because of threats it received over a LoTT post. Only the hospital was not evacuated. Lorenz asked LoTT about Dwoskin’s hospital activities, but LoTT just recited the story without any confirmation.

Hilariously, LoTT confronted Dwoskin over the lie and Dwoskin claimed that LoTT was responsible for the error, not Lorenz. Dwoskin tried to make LoTT accountable for Lorenz’s reporting and policing, but not herself nor WaPo’s editors.

There is no better example of the extent to which the Washington Post, and the rest of the mainstream media, have fallen. Although journalists are human beings, it is important for them to apologize for major errors.

But here is a major publication holding the hated subject responsible for its reporting accuracy. This is the WaPo’s current behavior. It cannot be considered a news source. It is a gossip magazine that holds grudges against individuals.

WaPo must start paying its subjects if it wants to hold them responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the reports it publishes.

If there’s one thing — other than the Covid shots, that is — that we’re lectured about 24 hours a day, it’s ‘democracy.’

Oh, our elites can’t get themselves enough democracy!

They are deeply concerned about following the will of the people, you understand.

But as what is already well known, the Progressive Era in the United States has not been so much about ‘democracy’ as it has been about transitioning toward a so-called expert direction of society, albeit with a veneer of democracy. What mattered to the Progressives was that they themselves were ultimately in charge.

This is how their modern counterparts can say, in all seriousness, that they’re “saving democracy” even when they’re sabotaging officials who won democratic elections. In case it sounds like they’re contradicting themselves, they’re really not. They are democracy. They and their colleagues and cronies and so-called experts are democracy, and the stupid rubes who won’t just bend the knee to them and do as they say are the enemies of democracy.

Have a future in mind that doesn’t involve crippling energy prices, eating bugs, having your kids brainwashed, and watching central banks siphon away your wealth? Why, you may be a danger to ‘democracy,’ citizen.

As Sam Francis wrote back in 2004, “What they mean by ‘democracy’ is nothing more than the system of dominance that came to prevail in the United States and the Western world in the last half of the last century.  That system has nothing to do with elections, opposition parties, civil and political rights, or ‘liberty,’ nor does it have anything to do with political theory, ancient or modern. ‘Democracy,’ as the neocons and the President and most others who are enthusiastic about it use the word, means the centralized leviathan state under the firm and unqualified control of the managerial bureaucracy and those political forces able to influence it.”

So to review: democracy means rule by a self-identified elite, or people endorsed by that elite.

I present to you the most recent example of this phenomenon, this one from Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission.

She recently said, referring to Italy, “We’ll see if things go in a difficult direction — I have spoken of Hungary and Poland — we have tools.”

In other words: sorry, people, but if you vote for parties we dislike, we’ll sanction you. That’s ‘democracy’! (Of course, our elites don’t dislike left-wing parties no matter how much wreckage or destruction they cause.)

Oh, and incidentally, try to make sense of this: the sacred ‘people’ are supposed to be capable of choosing among political candidates, but they are evidently incapable of choosing among ideas, which is why the federal government — which loves democracy, remember — spent the Covid panic suppressing dissident voices, generally through pressure on Big Tech (which was all too happy to go along).

Incidentally, there are ways to avoid the privacy problems and censorship of Big Tech, but most people either don’t know how or don’t know where to start and that’s a topic for another time.

Is there really an agenda for world domination?

Since the beginning of time, power hungry madmen have attempted to seize control over the entire world. The desire to rule all of humanity is as old as humanity itself.

Egyptian pharaohs, Asian emperors, European warlords, Roman emperors, Russian tsars, and British kings waged relentless wars, trying to gain absolute power over the rest of humanity. One world empire succeeded the other: the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Chinese, Spanish, British empires all had one goal: conquer the nations, and if possible… rule the entire world.

The age old desire for world domination is one of the most basic realities in the history of humanity.

Many people in our time have however been led to believe that the dark desire to rule the world has somehow miraculously disappeared. Nothing could be further from the truth. This diabolical lust is more alive and dangerous today, than ever before. New technologies and the all encompassing mind control by the omnipresent news media is creating unprecedented opportunities to enslave the entire human race, without most people even realizing it.

In the past, invading other nations was hard: iron clashed against iron, and every blast was answered with an even louder blast. Today the game has changed. In order to conquer the world, there is no longer a need for swords and spears, or guns and rockets.

All the invaders need to do, is tell the world that a terrible danger is threatening everybody, and most people will immediately surrender all their rights and freedoms, in order to feel “safe”.

After World War II the nazis were prosecuted during the historic Nuremberg trials. Judges were puzzled by the fact that Hitler had been able to get the support from the majority of the German people, for his insane mass murdering of millions of innocent people. Hitler’s right hand, Hermann Goring, explained how they did it:

“It’s easy. All you have to do, is tell them they are being attacked, and… they will follow their leader. This works in every nation.” Basically Goring said: simply make the people afraid, and they will do whatever you want, in order to feel safe again.

The tool to make the entire world terrified of some “terrible danger” is the news media. With news media you can control exactly what the public thinks. A synonym for news media is mind control. It’s essentially the same.

Most people brainlessly believe anything they see on the news.

Let the news tell the masses a dangerous virus threatens them, and they throw themselves at your feet, willing to do anything you demand, to keep them “safe”. Even drive around in their car, all by themselves, wearing a dirty, bacteria infested cloth on their face that keeps pure air out, and toxic air in. They even bring you their babies, and beg you to please inject them with an experimental, untested, gene altering cocktail of different toxins.

People will literally do anything, no matter how devastating it is to the well being of themselves, their beloved ones, and their fellow citizens, as long as it goes along with the hypnotizing mantra “this will keep you safe”.

Because of this, it has become a piece of cake for criminal rulers to submit the masses to their fingertips of totalitarian control. Especially because they have full control over all mainstream media. They acquired it for this very reason:

to have the ability to invade the mind of mankind and mold it exactly according to their agenda.

What is the supreme level of brainwashing?

Although the lust for world domination has been the common theme throughout history, in our day the mind control has reached the supreme level where it has led many to entirely reject the idea that there could be a plan to rule the world.

“Hahaha, that’s a conspiracy theory”, they echo loudly, brainlessly repeating what “the Lord of the News” told them.

Those who know history, are stunned by such display of stupidity, yet it is the perception of the majority of the public. Explain how powerful people with boundless financial resources are planning to dominate the world, and many will give you a blank stare… as if you just claimed the moon is one giant ball of vanilla ice cream.

The supreme level of brainwashing is when an entire population calls the most basic realities of human history a “conspiracy theory”.

To be continued…

Joe Biden declared the pandemic over a few days ago, and that made some people very unhappy.

I look at it this way: without a doubt we are at the stage now where what matters most is making sure we get the story of what happened right, so future generations are not misled.

Mark Woolhouse, one of Scotland’s top infectious disease epidemiologists, just released The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir. It’s certainly a step in the right direction.

I thought I’d share bits and pieces with you (I’ve preserved the UK spelling):

“My main aim in writing this book is that lockdown scepticism will become the mainstream view.”

“There is comfort in following the crowd even while it is stampeding in the wrong direction. We wouldn’t let go of lockdown even after the evidence of the harm it was causing became so compelling that the WHO itself came to reject it.”

“The advisory system was dominated by clinicians and public health specialists who weren’t looking at the bigger picture, such as economists, ethicists…which is why they kept recommending lockdown…. The response was being driven too much by epidemiology, and I’m an epidemiologist.”

“Richard Horton — editor of the Lancet — and others continued to rail against their straw man version of a herd immunity strategy…the debate descended into farce…like the tide, herd immunity happens whether you believe in it or not.”

“Lockdown was never going to solve the problem, it just deferred it to another day, and it did so at great cost…everyone needs to understand what such a harmful intervention can and cannot achieve before we introduce it. They didn’t.”

“Lockdown was conceived by the WHO and China as a means of eradicating the virus once and for all from the face of the earth. With hindsight, this plan was doomed to fail from the outset.”

“During the pandemic, several politicians adopted the position that ‘no death from covid is acceptable’…. This made it impossible to tackle the virus in a rational manner…. We do not treat any other public health issue this way.”

“Will the cure turn out to be worse than the disease?… As early as April 2020, ONS used quality adjusted life years (QALY) lost to weigh harms and benefits…. The best estimate was three times more harm…we got the balance wrong.”

“As far back as March 2020 there was evidence from China that outdoor transmission was extremely rare…. To my knowledge, no outbreaks have been linked to a beach anywhere in the world, ever.”

“The average age of death in the UK is 78 years old…. The average age of death from covid-19 up to October 2020 was 80 years…. I’d say that was a reasonable definition of a disease of old age.”

“Even more important: never rely on a single model…. Many people believed [the UK fall 2020 lockdown] occurred on the basis of a ‘dodgy dossier’ — a term used in the build up to the Iraq War in 2003.”

“I was not prepared for the hate mail either, as vicious as any I received throughout the pandemic…. People who spent the past year indoors did not want to be told that it had been safe to go out all along…. Decision-makers had lost all sense of proportion.”

An interesting book, as you can see.

And it reminds us of all the looniness from “public health” officials and even from your local doctor, who more often than not endorsed these measures. Your local doctor to this day thinks he’s saving lives by separating the “clean” pens from the used pens.

Who can blame all those people who watched this spectacle and reached the obvious conclusion that if the medical establishment could take such consistently irrational and destructive decisions, that maybe there’s something rotten at the heart of it?

At the very least, there are today a lot more people in favor of medical freedom for themselves than there were three years ago.

Some of them aren’t really sure what to do next, whether or how they should speak up without alienating people close to them.

Wait. What? This is the NYT. Leftist as can be.
What’s changed since 2012?

I will tell you what’s changed. Then it was elderly and overseas troops who were both Conservatives and it didn’t fit the liberal narrative back then.

Just as illegal minorities now flooding the country will over a generation or two turn Conservatives, leftists at that time will suddenly turn on open borders.

YOU JUST WATCH IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH!

Huh!!!??? WHAT!!!???