fox files

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!!!???

Government regulators at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say they will not release any of the agency’s Covid-19 “vaccine” safety analyses for independent review because their findings are allegedly part of internal discussions that are protected by law.

Back in July, The Epoch Times submitted a request to the FDA for all analyses performed using a special method called Empirical Bayesian data mining. This method involves comparing adverse events recorded after injection with a Fauci Flu shot to adverse events recorded after injection with some other non-covid vaccine.

Whatever data these analyses produced was used by the FDA to foist Chinese Virus shots on everyone, including infants and toddlers. (Related: Check out our earlier coverage about the FDA’s suspicious secrecy to learn more.)

The operational procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 2021 and February 2022 stipulate that the FDA is to perform data mining “at least biweekly,” if not more often than that, to identify adverse events “reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.” That data was to come from the official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Fast-forward to today and the FDA is now refusing to release any information about this data mining, claiming an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that allows governments to withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters “that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

The FDA also cited the Code of Federal Regulations, which states that “all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable in accordance with the rule established in § 20.22 is available for public disclosure.”

Why doesn’t the FDA want us to see its covid injection data?

The FDA is refusing to release even redacted versions of the data, which strongly suggests that the agency has a lot to hide. It really, really does not want the public to see these analyses, presumably because they expose Fauci Flu shots as dangerous and ineffective.

“The secrecy is unacceptable for an agency that said it is transparent with the public about vaccine safety,” says Kim Witzcak, co-founder of the non-profit advocacy group Woodymatters, which wants the FDA to be stronger and more transparent.

“What’s the point of having VAERS if you’re not releasing it to the public?”

Witzcak, who also sits on one of the FDA’s outside advisory panels, says her own concerns about the injections are also highlighted in a recent paper from Dr. Joseph Fraiman, which identified higher rates of serious adverse events in people who took the mRNA (messenger RNA) shots from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna versus those who took a placebo.

“If this data is available, shame on you for not making it known to the public,” Witczak said about that data. “It’s as if they don’t trust the people to make their own best decision for what’s good for them and their families.”

The Times says it is appealing the FDA’s decision to withhold the analytical data, which will hopefully at some point in the future force the agency to comply with the request.

“Hiding the evidence … again,” wrote a Times commenter about the FDA’s shady behavior.

“Didn’t your parents warn you not to trust the government?” asked another. “The swamp is a cesspool. Power corrupts people. Term limits are desperately needed.”

The latest news about the corrupt FDA can be found at FDA.news.

Today’s Situation Update podcast (below) reveals a stunning truth: Nearly all the institutions of modern Western Civilization are holding back humanity from progress, truth, liberty and happiness. Almost without exception, every Western institution — government, media, entertainment, sports, education, finance, tech, science, medicine and more — has been overtaken by anti-human, luciferian forces that push policies rooted in pure evil:

• Child grooming, pedophilia and transgenderism maiming
• Satanism and luciferin indoctrination
• Transhumanism
• Anti-human depopulation
• Mass censorship and the suppression of human knowledge and truth (Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.)
• Mass poisoning of humanity through toxic food, toxic medicine and toxic fake news
• Mass obedience and authoritarian control over individuals’ actions
• Mass surveillance / total invasion of privacy and the right to be left alone
• The dismantling of food resources (hunger / starvation / scarcity) that keep human civilization fed
• The dismantling of energy resources that keep human economies functioning
• Engineered bioweapons labeled “vaccines” that are designed to achieve global genocide
• Attacks on family values, White men, straight couples, reason, rationality and normalcy
• Attacks on the biosphere / geoengineering (see my recent bombshell interview with Dane Wigington here)

The White House is now hiring straight-up satanist homosexuals like Demetre Daskalakis, whose photos are featured below. He wears leather S&M bondage gear in the shape of the satanic pentagram star, and he has tattoos depicting luciferin themes. He is depicted in photos implying he has sex with other homosexuals who self-identify as animals. The White House obviously knew all this before they hired him which means they want you to know you are being ruled by luciferin homosexuals.

Yes, you are being ruled by a homosexual monkeypox ambassador that goes by the name, “Nastypig Hero.”

In case you were looking for a gay sailor hypnosis therapy doctor, he can also do that. Perhaps the CDC is hiring:

That is one sick puppy… almost literally, as some of these homosexual freaks ‘identify’ as animals as part of their sex rituals:

The monkeypox doctor will see you now… no doubt the NIH will provide millions in funding for his ‘research’ into monkeypox transmission vectors:

There are no words for this one. Is it the Gay Green Goblin on a Spiderman bike? Remember, it was Joe Biden’s choice to put this man in the White House administration:

Here’s a photo composition that’s been circulating, showing what in my opinion is a cabal of perverts and freaks that now represent the illegitimate Biden White House, which looks something like “Satan’s Evil Avengers.” (The “admiral” on the left is so mentally ill, he thinks he’s a woman, and currently one-fourth of Democrats actually believe men can get pregnant…)

Is it any surprise that the Biden regime is also pushing child mutilations, pedophilia, sodomy and indoctrination of children in public schools?

You need to understand, what you see here is also present in Canada (Trudeau), the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Ukraine, etc. Nearly all the nations of Western Civilization are run by demonic freaks and perverts who despise humanity and who worship Satan. They are no longer hiding it. The demons have come out for all the world to see.

Do not cry as the demon-infested institutions of Western Civilization collapse into ruin

The more you understand the level of pure satanic evil that has infested the governments and institutions of Western Civilization, the easier it is to realize that their collapse is a necessary step for humanity to ever be free from their reign of evil.

Humanity will never be free (or sane) as long as these freaks, perverts, demons and child-grooming lunatics remain in charge. The coming collapse of Western Europe’s demonic governments (and fake fiat currencies) is actually a blessing for the world. That doesn’t mean there won’t be suffering, because there most certainly will be. But the demise of this luciferin global control cartel is absolutely necessary for the re-founding and rebuilding of human societies rooted in Christian principles, family values and honest money.

There is no reforming this system from within, by the way. It can only be dismantled and replaced. Fortunately for all of us who are pro-human, pro-Christian advocates for life and liberty, the luciferin-dominated Western nations are dismantling themselves with policies of economic suicide. They are cutting off their own energy supplies, food supplies and infrastructure. They are demanding the end of human civilization via “green” energy policies and LGBT mutilations of children, combined with genocidal bioweapons “vaccines” and the mass poisoning of the world through pesticides, herbicides and chemtrails.

They are so maniacally insane and arrogant, they don’t yet realize they have already set wheels in motion that will destroy the entire West, taking down governments, central banks and institutions that are all rooted in demonism and anti-human agendas. They are going to achieve their own destruction. Meanwhile, those who prepare to survive the implosion will make it through the hell being unleashed on our planet, positioning themselves to help re-found and rebuild human society after the collapse of the current luciferin system.

Only the prepared will survive, while the oblivious degens will be deprecated

“Degens” are degenerates. “Deprecated” means to be removed after being rendered obsolete.

In other words, get ready for the total collapse of Western Civilization on a truly Biblical scale, because that’s exactly where this is headed. And it will be a blessing for humanity to finally see the pillars of satanism and perversion crash and burn, allowing God-honoring champions of life and liberty to structure a whole new civilization rooted in reason and individual freedom.

It’s time to lock up the groomers and child mutilators. Send them to prison for life. Dismantle the systems of tyranny and lawlessness that threaten humanity’s future. Restore the freedom to farm, the freedom to speak and the freedom to dissent. Humanity is on the cusp of both its most devastating — and promising — pivot point in history. What matters most is how we deal with the crisis that is being engineered: Do we surrender to tyranny, or do we take a stand for the future of human freedom?

The choice is ours. For me, I choose God and freedom.

One of the most laughable developments of recent years has been the rise of the ‘fact-checker(s).’

The ‘fact-checker’, in the fantasy version, is a nonpartisan, dispassionate expert who wants to prevent people from being misled.

In the planet-Earth version, the ‘fact checker’ is a hyper-partisan little snot-nosed fanatic kid sitting in his mommy’s basement with a Hot Pocket who wants to prevent people from entertaining thoughts at odds with the narrative the regime is trying to present.

One of the worst run-in’s with a ‘fact-checker’ happened, when else, in 2020. Speaker Tom Woods had given a 20-minute talk called “The COVID Cult” at a Ron Paul event outside Houston.

In those 20 minutes, he packed in as much common sense about the situation as possible, along with a bunch of charts that looked the opposite of how they should have if the alleged ‘mitigation measures’ did any good.

That video took off. By the time Big Tech banned it, it had 1.5 million views.

When they banned it, they rubbed salt in the wound with one of their absurd ‘fact checks.’

Mr. Woods devoted episode #1782 of the Tom Woods Show to refuting it.

Here’s a sample.

First, they sure didn’t like his mask charts!

Most of those charts showed one key thing: if you take an individual country, look at its graph of ‘cases’, and then tried to guess where the mask mandate went into effect, you’d have always been wrong. It’s entirely random.

It’s not like (1) there are lots of cases, then (2) at the top there’s a mask mandate, and then (3) the cases went away. It was just random and that’s all it was.

The ‘fact checkers’ thought Woods was comparing one country with another, and said that there were many factors other than masks that account for the differences. Well, duh. But most of his presentation wasn’t comparing one country with another. It was comparing countries with themselves.

(Although you’d better believe that if the charts showed masked countries doing better, Facebook would have cited that against him without any of this concern for subtlety.)

And the point is this: the CDC director at that time was obviously full of it when he said that 4-6 weeks of mask wearing would get so-called ‘cases’ way down. Even Michael Osterholm, on Joe Biden’s COVID team, called the remark “unfortunate” (which is academic-speak for complete bullshit).

Also in his talk he made oblique reference to the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement authored by scientists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, and co-signed by countless more experts and citizens, calling lockdowns a public health fiasco and recommending instead a “focused protection” approach that would have allowed the young to resume their lives while still protecting the older and elderly.

The entirety of the ‘fact check’ on this was that some public health officials had said that it was a bad idea.

There’s controversy about it, so that makes it wrong!

Woods further said that the public health establishment had been silent on the collateral damages of lockdown. This is wrong, he was told. Then why hadn’t he seen, buried in paragraph 15, the World Health Organization saying something about it in September?

September! Six months after the fiasco started, they finally made the tiniest acknowledgment of the damage, and that merits a ‘fact check’??????

Two paradigm-smashing progressives insist that Americans “became convinced” that divorce is bad for kids. There’s so much wrong here. There’s no convincing here. It IS bad for the children. Period.

I recently learned of a certain article that appeared in Slate: “How Americans Became Convinced Divorce Is Bad for Kids.” The piece, by Gail Cornwall and Scott Coltrane, is a disjointed attempt to promote the “woke” theory that divorce itself—the direct dismantling of a child’s family—does not harm children long-term.

What is the real culprit, then? The authors tell us directly:

Most of the problems associated with being a child of divorce are instead related to sexism, racism, homophobia, shoddy recordkeeping, and insufficient government support.

The authors throw in everything but the kitchen sink and include over sixty links (except to my works cited) to make their case. For brevity’s sake, I will respond with three simple points.

1. The implication of the article is wrong.

Even the title assumes too much. Let’s back up and ask the obvious: have Americans become convinced that divorce is bad for kids? In all my work against divorce, I see the opposite.

Certainly, there was a time when Americans believed that divorce harms children, but those days are long gone. Since the Sexual Revolution, which spawned The Divorce Fantasy World, Americans have been taught that divorce is not bad for kids, that “Kids are resilient!” and “Kids are happy when their parents are happy!” The internet is flooded with “joyful co-parenting” photos and articles. Despite this ubiquitous cultural message, the authors insist there’s a “shared understanding” by Americans that children suffer long-term after their parents’ divorce.

We can test their theory by going to the pulse of the culture, which is social media. Try writing the following on any mainstream women’s Facebook group or media comment section: “People in unhappy marriages should stay together for the sake of their kids, because divorce harms children.” You will soon—and loudly—have your answer about where America stands on this issue.

The voices that claim that divorce is harmful to children are so few that one wonders if articles like the one in Slate are really about quashing the last dying gasp of a nation’s guilty conscience.

Interestingly, the authors themselves seem to admit by the end of their piece that their premise is untenable:

You may have noticed that we haven’t been able to cite any research to support the idea that the majority of us still mistakenly believe divorce commonly does irreparable harm to kids. That’s because the question isn’t asked by nonpartisan national surveys anymore.

And that brings me to the second point:

2. The article is largely an anti-Christian hit piece.

The authors claim they can’t provide evidence for their thesis because wide-scale research on the effects of divorce on children ended decades ago. Why ended, you ask? The authors blame conservative Christians:

The [narrative] influenced by sexism, racism, homophobia, and other types of fear prevailed. . . . As a result of the way the Christian right was able to frame—and effectively close—the policy debate, national solutions have focused on individuals’ decisions and bolstering the institution of marriage: choose the right spouse. Go to couples [sic] therapy. All but ignored is the government’s opportunity and obligation to families.

The authors decry the “conservative ‘family values’ movement” for running “pro-marriage PR campaigns” that were “deeply homophobic,” because they “promoted heterosexual marriage with funding from conservative groups.” They lament: “If national policy were based on research rather than zealotry, we would invest in children’s well-being” (emphasis mine).

There you have it! “We”—i.e., the government, through “progressive” policies and social programs—could quickly and effectively end the suffering of the children of divorce, if only the racist, sexist, homophobic conservative-zealot Christians would get out of the way and let the children be well.

Forget for a moment that the authors appear to be wholly unfamiliar with Natural Law philosophy or the fact that marriage as conjugal union (“bride-groom” presupposes “bride”) has been about the begetting and rearing of children in every pre-Christian, non-Christian, and even atheist society since time immemorial. Forget that marriage is the most ancient of human relationships, pre-political, pre-nation-state, and that its nature and purpose was not invented by the modern American “Christian right.”

Even on its face, the authors’ claim that conservative Christians are the problem here doesn’t hold water. After all, the one researcher with whom the authors take the most issue, and whose seminal research they equate with “zealotry,” is Dr. Judith Wallerstein—a Jewish professor who taught at leftist Berkeley, and who was herself surprised at the devastating findings of her own long-term study.

The intimate and primal bond of mother-father-child is not a modern construct dreamed up for American culture wars. Men and women of every place and time have always come together in lifelong marriage, and children have always been the natural fruit of marriage. Children have a natural right to be raised by their married mother and father, and to deny that is not a slap against the “Christian right” as the authors might believe; it’s a slap against Natural Law, human reason, and the collective human understanding and experience from time immemorial.

This brings me to my final point:

3. Are we losing our humanity?

Are we at the point where we believe that government— through bureaucrats, policy wonks, and social workers—can substitute for intimate human relationships? Can “good recordkeeping,” feminist activism, and LGBT ideology heal broken hearts and despairing spirits when a child’s mom and dad have stopped loving each other?

The authors believe that with the right government assistance and policies, the children of divorce will become as “successful” as children from intact families. But the “success” we see and measure on the outside can be deceptive. I hear this sentiment repeatedly from the adult children of divorce:

The kids may grow up to be successful, like I did, but the psychological damage will always occur in the child…You can’t tear up a child’s foundation of security (which is their parents’ marriage) and expect them to be fine.

The “successes” of school and career were, in part, because I felt the pressure to have it all together, since the rest of my life was so unstable.

I didn’t just lose parents, I also lost siblings, nieces, and nephews. My entire nuclear family disintegrated. Yet if you knew me only as a professional, you wouldn’t have any idea of what utter catastrophe my nuclear family represents in my world.

Yes, we may go on to live successful lives, but with a lot of baggage. For me personally, that means a past that still haunts me to this day.

It’s hard to fathom an authentically human argument that would suggest government programs and leftist politics as a cure for the loss of a family. I’m sure that our “progressive” authors realize that the profound grief of a widower, an abandoned spouse, or a mother who has lost her child can’t be made right by any form of bureaucracy, and so I pray that they will extend that realization to the long-term grief of the children of divorce as well.

Because in the end, the authors’ beef is not with “sexist, racist, homophobic” boogeyman Christians who oppose good recordkeeping, thwart sound research, and block government “services.” In the end, their beef is with the natural order of human relationships and God’s order of things.

During the George W. Bush years, Glenn Greenwald rose to prominence for his opposition to the White House’s record on civil liberties.

Oh, the left-liberal establishment loved him.

Then he decided he would apply his principles equally to both sides.

Then they didn’t like him so much.

Today he published an important thread on Twitter, a portion of which I wanted to share with you. Here he describes exactly what’s going on with the suppression of dissident voices. And unlike all too many libertarians, whose entire analysis was “they’re private companies; they can do what they want,” Greenwald gets to the heart of what’s happening:

The regime of censorship being imposed on the internet – by a consortium of DC Dems, billionaire-funded “disinformation experts,” the US Security State, and liberal employees of media corporations – is dangerously intensifying in ways I believe are not adequately understood. 

A series of “crises” have been cynically and aggressively exploited to inexorably restrict the range of permitted views, and expand pretexts for online silencing and deplatforming. Trump’s election, Russiagate, 1/6, COVID and war in Ukraine all fostered new methods of repression.

During the failed attempt in January to force Spotify to remove Joe Rogan, the country’s most popular podcaster – remember that? – I wrote that the current religion of Western liberals in politics and media is censorship: their prime weapon of activism.

But that Rogan failure only strengthened their repressive campaigns. Dems routinely abuse their majoritarian power in DC to explicitly coerce Big Tech silencing of their opponents and dissent. This is *Govt censorship* disguised as corporate autonomy.

There’s now an entire new industry, aligned with Dems, to pressure Big Tech to censor. Think tanks and self-proclaimed “disinformation experts” funded by Omidyar, Soros and the US/UK Security State use benign-sounding names to glorify ideological censorship as neutral expertise.

The worst, most vile arm of this regime are the censorship-mad liberal employees of big media corporations. Masquerading as “journalists,” they align with the scummiest Dem groups to silence and deplatform.

It is astonishing to watch Dems and their allies in media corporations posture as opponents of “fascism” – while their main goal is to *unite state and corporate power* to censor their critics and degrade the internet into an increasingly repressive weapon of information control. 

A major myth that must be quickly dismantled: political censorship is not the byproduct of autonomous choices of Big Tech companies.

This is happening because DC Dems and the US Security State are threatening reprisals if they refuse. They’re explicit.

But the worst is watching people whose job title in corporate HR Departments is “journalist” take the lead in agitating for censorship. They exploit the platforms of corporate giants to pioneer increasingly dangerous means of banning dissenters. *These* are the authoritarians.

This is the frog-in-boiling-water problem: the increase in censorship is gradual but continuous, preventing recognition of how severe it’s become. The EU now legally mandates censorship of Russian news. They’ve made it *illegal* for companies to air it.

So many new tactics of censorship repression have emerged in the West: Trudeau freezing bank accounts of tucker-protesters; PayPal partnering with ADL to ban dissidents from the financial system; Big Tech platforms openly colluding in unison to de-person people from the internet.

All of this stems from the classic mentality of all would-be tyrants: our enemies are so dangerous, their views so threatening, that everything we do – lying, repression, censorship – is noble. That’s what made the Sam Harris confession so vital: that’s how liberal elites think.

This is why I regard the Hunter Biden scandal as uniquely alarming. The media didn’t just “bury” the archive. CIA concocted a lie about it (it’s “Russian disinformation”); media outlets spread that lie; Big Tech [censored] it — because lying and repression to them is justified!

The authoritarian mentality that led CIA, corporate media and Big Tech to lie about the Biden archive before the election is the same driving this new censorship craze. It’s the hallmark of all tyranny: “our enemies are so evil and dangerous, anything is justified to stop them.” 

How come **not one media outlet** that spread this CIA lie – the Hunter Biden archive was “Russian disinformation” – retracted or apologized? This is why: they believe they are so benevolent, their cause so just, that lying and censorship are benign.

The one encouraging aspect: as so often happens with despotic factions, they are triggering and fueling the backlash to their excesses. Sites devoted to free speech – led by Rumble, along with Substack, Callin, and others – are exploding in growth.

But as these free speech platforms grow and become a threat, the efforts to crush them also grow – exactly as AOC, other Dems and their corporate media allies successfully demanded Google, Apple and Amazon destroy Parler when it became the single most-popular app in the country.

It is hard to overstate how much pressure is now brought to bear by liberal censors on these free speech platforms, especially Rumble. Their vendors are threatened. Their hosting companies targeted. They have accounts cancelled and firms refusing to deal with them. It’s a regime.

It’s not melodrama or hyperbole to say: what we have is a war in the West, a war over whether the internet will be free, over whether dissent will be allowed, over whether we will live in the closed propaganda system our elites claim The Bad Countries™ impose. It’s no different.

In even the most despotic nations, the banal, conformist citizen thinks they’re free. As Rosa Luxemburg said: “he who does not move, does not feel his chains.”

Of course the Chris Hayes’s and Don Lemon’s think this is all absurd: Good Liberals threaten nobody and thus flourish.

The measure of societal freedom is not how servants of power are treated: they’re always left alone or rewarded. The key metric is how dissidents are treated. Now, they are imprisoned (Assange), exiled (Snowden) and, above all, silenced by corporate/state power (dissidents)….

As I’ve often said, the media outlets screaming most loudly about “disinformation” are the ones that spread it most frequently, casually and destructively (NBC/CNN/WPost, etc.).

It’s equally true of those now claiming to fight “fascism”: real repression comes *from them.*

There is much talk about how to “fix Washington”: how the administrative state might be brought to heel and made accountable and responsive to the practical problems facing the American people. The election of Donald Trump is best understood as a populist effort to “fix Washington.” But Washington was not fixed. On the contrary. As we learned from the soft coup that was the “Russian collusion” psy-op, the two fake impeachments, Democrats’ condoning of the George Floyd riots, and the manipulation of the 2020 election, the administrative state has only grown more brazen, more authoritarian, and more abusive in its exercise of power since 2016.

Perhaps Washington can’t be fixed. But it can be dismantled. Do we need Washington D.C. as the central locus of national power? With enormous technological changes in how business is conducted and how communication works, it may be that a capital city is a vestige of an earlier era. Perhaps rather than working to fix D.C., we should work to end it.

The benefits of a decentralized government

Until recently, there would have been no way that the federal government could function without a centralized place to conduct business. But today, we shop online. We work online. For two years, people went to school online. If all these essential life activities could be moved to the internet, why couldn’t government? While one could argue that online education and similar enterprises have decreased the quality of the services they provide, it appears that online governance might enhance the function of our democracy.

A major reason that Washington can’t be fixed is what has been called the “monoculture” that obtains throughout the government. The culture of any place breeds conformity: to refuse to assimilate to a culture is to mark yourself as an outsider. Because the presence of outsiders threatens the maintenance of any culture, cultural insiders often withhold their approval from those who don’t conform.

Imagine that a new representative is elected from the state of Delaware. He arrives in the capital as an avatar for the culture of Delaware, which is not the culture of Washington D.C. Because he shares the interests of the people of Delaware, he serves as an effective representative his constituents. But D.C. institutions have a different way of doing things: a different way of governing, socializing, doing business, and influence peddling. This creates a pressure for our representative from Delaware to adapt. After all, if he doesn’t, he won’t earn many friends—and he may even find some enemies. And if that were to happen, his tenure in Congress could be very brief. He doesn’t want that. So, the longer he is in the capital, the more he acculturates to the D.C. way of doing things. This wins him friends, donors, and more elections. After 50 years of “public service,” our regular Joe from Delaware will be almost entirely unrecognizable to the people he used to represent.

Remote government by Zoom might be the best way to break this monoculture. If all the official proceedings of the legislature were conducted virtually, this would keep the officials in the states that they represent. Not only would they be more aware of the situation in their home states (since they’d no longer spend much of the year far away), they would be more accessible to their constituents. Regular physical contact with the people who elected for them would increase the accountability of officials as they serve out their terms. This would also impede the formation of close friendships with representatives from other states, and hinder coziness between our representatives and the lobbyist and consultant class that parasitizes the body politic inside the Beltway. These friendships—which the culture of a centralized capital encourages—create an opportunity for an elected official to develop personal allegiances, obligations, and favoritism that may run counter to the interests of the people he represents.

Still, it wouldn’t be enough to simply conduct official state proceedings virtually. It would be even more important that the business of unelected bureaucrats also be moved online. Right now, the staff of the Department of State, the Internal Revenue Service, or the Environmental Protection Agency is largely composed of educated urbanites, raised in the monoculture of the university and the eastern power corridor. Imagine if the mid-level clerks at the State Department weren’t all working together in Washington, but were spread out across the country, working independently from home: one in Kalispell, Montana, another in Little Rock, Arkansas, and another in Birmingham, Alabama. There would be no more potent way to erode the influence of the monoculture in government. Bureaucrats wouldn’t have personal relationships with most of the people they work with. Further, because so many colleagues would come from outside the monoculture, they wouldn’t be able to reliably ascertain where their political loyalties lie, which would discourage internal schemes. And the fact that one could never be sure that one’s online communication wasn’t being recorded or surveilled would be a strong disincentive for conspiratorial corruption. Finally, the tedium of online communication (emails, Zoom calls, etc.) would encourage workers to eliminate almost all inessential interaction, which would undermine the informal advocacy and organization that occurs behind closed doors in D.C.

There would also be a variety of peripheral benefits to be had from eliminating a national capital. As it stands, the capital city always represents a desirable target for hostile military action—this was tragically illustrated on 9/11 and various other occasions. With all government business conducted online, enemies of the United States would be deprived of an attractive hard target. Additionally, as we have recently seen, the courts of Washington routinely serve the objectives of the state monoculture. For cases that involve the interests of the federal government (which are often tried in Washington simply because the government is located there), the outcome is all but predetermined. But if the government wasn’t physically located in Washington, some other criteria could decide where these critical cases were tried, and juries could be drawn from places other than the capital.

The future of the former capital

Surely, there would also be some drawbacks to abolishing the capital, most notably that the basic functions of government would come to rely almost entirely upon the availability and quality of internet access. In some extreme scenarios, this could inhibit the ability of the state to respond to emergent crises rapidly and effectively. But as it is, no one would say that responsiveness is a major characteristic of the federal government in Washington.    

What would happen to D.C.? It would still exist as the historical seat of government. All the great monuments of our nation, along with the Capitol, the White House, the Smithsonian, and more would still be there, ensuring that tourism remains a major source of revenue for the city and its inhabitants. The National Archives would still hold the great documents of the Founding. The federal district could take on the status of the Tower of London in Britain as an official, ceremonial representation of the power of the United States; or like Kyoto in Japan, as a historical center of the nation. Many nations build new capitals to reflect new domestic needs. Egypt is currently building its “New Administrative Capital” to relieve congestion in Cairo, and Indonesia is relocating its capital from Jakarta to the new planned city of Nusantara. America will do something new, extraordinary, and cutting-edge: we won’t move the seat of political power, but devolve power to the provinces.

It increasingly seems that the very function of having a capital in our era is to protect and nourish the monoculture that makes DC seem so remote—politically, culturally, and geographically—from so many of the Americans that the government purports to represent. Dissolving the capital could reduce the corruption that is now implicitly associated with any mention of “Washington.” This could be a great step forward for our democracy. Somewhat ironically, decentralizing the federal government might make it feel a good deal closer to many of the people it serves.

OK I might be deep down the rabbit hole but I’d love to know if you think the same.

The government, by not doing its part to promote traditional values…

By not educating our sons with what it means to be a responsible man…

By pushing leftist propaganda (and MUCH more)…

They’re the ones contributing to school shootings because our boys grow up to be:

• Frustrated
• Confused
• Angry

Pair this up with the Internet and the ‘social justice’ narratives while covered with the absolute free flow of psychiatric drugs, newly made-up ailments everywhere and involving millions …

And you get the school shootings recipe served right in front of you.

Now I realize there is much more that goes into this and these are just a few of the changes that need to be made, but it would be a start in the right direction at least.

But these were simply some thoughts I was curious if others aligned with.

If you do…

Then it probably means you’ll agree with me when I say THIS:

A few ways to stop school shootings are to…

• Promote traditional masculinity
• The family coming back to raising children around firearms and teaching safety from a young age on
• Implementing ‘arms education’ in schools as it used to be by teaching firearm knowledge & practice
• Taking a closer and much deeper look at ‘ailments’, psychiatrics and drugs
• Embracing the harsh reality of the world and stopping to try and sugarcoat it

I believe if we can get these things in place, tragedies will disappear.

Those are my thoughts and I’m sticking with them.