Microsoft founder and the man who could never rid his Windows product of viruses and the blue screen of death but wants you to take his experimental “vaccines,” Bill Gates, has his grimy hands in virtually everything that exists in the world. However, now he is talking about wanting to change “every aspect of the economy” to push for the climate change hoax all while the people eat fake, lab-created “meat.”
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is pushing drastic and ‘fundamental’ changes to the economy in order to immediately halt the release of greenhouse gasses – primarily carbon dioxide – and ‘go to zero’ in order to save the planet from long-prognosticated (and consistently wrong) environmental disaster.
Changes we’ll need to make in order to realize Gates’ vision include:
Allocating $35 billion per year on climate and clean energy research.
Electric everything.
Widespread consumption of fake meat, since cows account for ‘4% of all greenhouse gases.’
Retooling the steel and cement industries, which Gates says account for 16% of all carbon dioxide emissions, to inject up to 30% of captured C02 into concrete, and create a different type of steel.
Widespread adoption of next generation nuclear energy to supplement wind and solar.
And since producing plants to make fake meat emits gases as well, Gates has backed a company which uses fungus to make sausage and yogurt, which the billionaire calls “pretty amazing.”
“When you say fungi, do you mean like mushroom or a microbe?” asked Anderson Cooper in a recent “60 Minutes” interview to promote Gates’ new book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”
“It’s a microbe,” replied Gates, adding“The microbe was discovered in the ground in a geyser in Yellowstone National Park. Without soil or fertilizer it can be grown to produce this nutritional protein — that can then be turned into a variety of foods with a small carbon footprint.”
(Speaking of which, it appears that we’re already rounding the corner on C02 emissions)
Gates isn’t just looking to cut future carbon emissions, he is also investing in direct air capture, an experimental process to remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere. Some companies are now using these giant fans to capture CO2 directly out of the air, Gates has become one of the world’s largest funders of this kind of technology.
But of all his green investments, Gates has spent the most time and money pursuing a breakthrough in nuclear energy — arguing it’s key to a zero carbon future.
He says he’s a big believer in wind and solar and thinks it can one day provide up to 80% of the country’s electricity, but Gates insists unless we discover an effective way to store and ship wind and solar energy, nuclear power will likely have to do the rest. Energy from nuclear plants can be stored so it’s available when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
Gates also admits he’s a hypocrite – telling Cooper “I probably have one of the highest greenhouse gas footprints of anyone on the planet,” adding “my personal flying alone is gigantic.”
He’s atoning for his climate sins by purchasing plant-based aviation fuel, switching to an electric car, using solar panels, and buying carbon credits to the tune of $7 million per year.
Gates’ climate pivot is getting a full-court media press. As Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News writes:
Bill Gates has been lauded as the man to “save the world” and help the planet reach zero carbon emissions in a new report by Wired Magazine, despite such standards not being reflected in the billionaire philanthropist’s own lifestyle.
The article investigates how Gates plans to achieve a “zero carbon” world and promotes his new book which argues “it’s time we make real societal, economic and logistic changes to our way of life to avoid disaster.”
According to Gates, the planet needs to reach zero carbon emissions in order to “avoid catastrophe.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?creatorScreenName=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FFPPTim&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1361243904876699650&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fsonsoflibertymedia.com%2Fbill-gates-wants-to-use-climate-change-hoax-to-change-every-aspect-of-economy-like-he-did-with-the-coronavirus-hoax%2F&siteScreenName=BradleeDean1&theme=light&widgetsVersion=889aa01%3A1612811843556&width=550px
Gates’ efforts to reduce CO2 emissions may have an environmentalist sheen, but that goal also risks reducing living standards in the west, something that Gates isn’t likely to embrace for himself.
As has been previously noted, while Americans are being told that the dream of owning private property is over under a future ‘Great Reset’, Gates and other billionaires have been buying up huge amounts of farmland.
Gates is now the biggest owner of farmland in America, according to a Forbes report.
While the mainstream media continues to champion Gates’ influence, he has received harsh criticism elsewhere.
As we highlighted last week, Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, wrote a comprehensive report accusing Gates of engaging in neo-feudalism.
Kennedy warns that, “To cloak his dystopian plans for humanity in benign intentions, Gates has expropriated the rhetoric of “sustainability,” “biodiversity,” “good stewardship” and “climate.”
He also accused Gates of attempting to monopolise and dominate global food production, labeling it “a dark form of philanthrocapitalism based on biopiracy and corporate biopiracy.”
Kennedy was subsequently banned by Instagram after his report was published.
As was highlighted earlier, pro-Gates messaging has also found its way into children’s television programming.
* * *
Does Gates have a plan to force the rest of the world to adopt his vision?
Bill Gates should be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity for every adverse reaction and death that were the results of his experimental vaccines. Instead the world parades him around as though he is some sort of savior and humanitarian when nothing could be further from the truth.
Many Americans were perfectly fine with Islamic terrorists being shipped off to Guantanamo Bay where they would be endlessly waterboarded and tortured in countless other ways. But now members of Congress are talking about “applying the same penalties” to domestic “extremists” here in the United States. Does that mean that American citizens will soon be grabbed off the streets and sent to prison camps indefinitely without a trial? Personally, I am very much against terrorism wherever it is found all over the globe, but what some of our politicians are proposing to do to fight “domestic extremism” goes way over the line. Once you are done reading this article, I believe that you will share my concerns.
Even before the last election, the Department of Homeland Security was putting out some very alarming statements. For example, last October DHS officials came to the conclusion that U.S.-based extremists are now “the primary terrorist threat inside the United States”…
“The primary terrorist threat inside the United States will stem from lone offenders and small cells of individuals,” said the department’s first Homeland Threat Assessment. “Some U.S.-based violent extremists have capitalized on increased social and political tensions in 2020, which will drive an elevated threat environment at least through early 2021.”
If DHS officials had been referring to the groups that have been rioting, looting and burning our cities for the past 12 months, that assessment would make a lot of sense.
But of course, that was not who they were talking about.
The attack has left many lawmakers, and especially Democrats, insisting that domestic terrorism has eclipsed the threat from foreign actors such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. DHS and its agencies are responsible for securing the country’s borders, ports, transportation and cyber systems, generally leaving the monitoring of extremist groups and terrorism investigations to the FBI. But DHS and its agencies have nearly eight times as many employees as the FBI, and calls for the department to play a more muscular role in combating domestic extremism have policymakers looking at new ways to enlist its resources.
Once again, these Democrats are not talking about the groups that attack police stations, courthouses and federal buildings on an almost nightly basis.
Instead, their focus is almost exclusively on those that have “far right” political views.
Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is warning that her colleagues in Congress intend to define “extremist” so broadly that it could apply to nearly half the country…
“What characteristics are we looking for as we are building this profile of a potential extremist, what are we talking about? Religious extremists, are we talking about Christians, evangelical Christians, what is a religious extremist? Is it somebody who is pro-life? Where do you take this?” Gabbard said.
She said the proposed legislation could create “a very dangerous undermining of our civil liberties, our freedoms in our Constitution, and a targeting of almost half of the country.”
Last month, I wrote an article about the new bill that she was talking about. It is called the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2021, and it is basically the Patriot Act on steroids.
Of course, it won’t be used against terrorists on the left. During a recent discussion about domestic extremism, Democrat Bennie Thompson (who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee) specifically used the word “patriots” to describe the sort of person that he intends to target…
“A lot of them mask themselves under some guise of being patriots or some form of citizen, but the question is, what do they advocate?”
That statement should chill you to the core.
“Republican” Michael McCaul, who is also on the House Homeland Security Committee, has gone even farther.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), the committee’s former chairman, joined lawmakers calling for specific federal sanctions for domestic terrorism, potentially applying the same penalties as those that exist for terrorism that originates overseas. Such legislation could include penalties for providing material support to domestic groups and laws holding technology companies responsible for violent and extremist content on their platforms.
“I think it sends a strong message about where Congress is that we’re going to treat domestic terrorism on an equal plane as international terrorism,” McCaul said.
So what happens to terrorists overseas?
They are ruthlessly gunned down, their homes are hit by unexpected drone strikes, or if they are really lucky they get hauled off to Guantanamo Bay.
Without a doubt, terrorism has no place in our society.
And if authorities really wanted to do something about it, they should arrest the terrorists that are endlessly committing violence in Seattle, Portland and other major cities.
But whenever an American citizen is arrested, it is imperative that every constitutional right is respected and that citizen is given a fair trial.
Sadly, the measures that some members of Congress are now proposing cross quite a few lines that should never, ever be crossed.
Detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial is something that should never, ever be done.
Sending drones to “take out” U.S. citizens simply because of what they believe is something that should never, ever be done.
And torturing U.S. citizens in the name of “fighting extremism” is something that should never, ever be done.
All of these things have been done to ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists, and now members of Congress want “domestic extremists” to be treated the same way.
Since the definition of a “domestic extremist” now covers close to half the country, there is a very good chance that you could potentially be considered a “domestic extremist” too.
We have reached such a critical turning point in our history, and we really are on the verge of losing all of our precious constitutional rights.
Recently, we’ve been hearing the calls from the tyrants regarding “domestic terrorists,” and we already know how they are labeling law-abiding, patriots, Christians and Constitutionalists in that manner simply because we oppose them and their agenda. Congress is even pushing bills to label most Americans as domestic terrorists. However, actually thinking and formulating your own opinions and conclusions about the corporate-owned, CIA-controlled media’s narrative or that of a government narrative could also get you that label.
Conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial, Matthew Ehret writes. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.
Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.
If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.
Three Elementary Realizations for Thinking People
The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup). Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:
“Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” (Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)
Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”. Where this was brushed off as an unfounded conspiracy theory not long ago, even Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister (and neo-Nazi supporting Rhodes Scholar) Chrystia Freeland decided to become a Trustee of the World Economic Forum just weeks ago. In this role, Freeland joins fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in their mutual endeavor to be a part of the new movement to decarbonize civilization and make feudalism cool again.
Lastly, you might notice that your having arrived at these conclusions is itself increasingly becoming a form of thought-crime punishable in a variety of distasteful ways elaborated by a series of unprecedented new emergency regulations that propose extending the definition of “terrorism”. Those implicated under the new definition will be those broad swaths of citizens of western nations who don’t agree with the operating beliefs of the ruling oligarchy.
Already a 60 day review of the U.S. military is underway to purge the armed forces of all such “thought criminals” while McCarthyite legislation has been drafted to cleanse all government jobs of “conspiracy theorists”.
Another startling announcement from the National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin that domestic terrorists include: “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority [and] perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
While not yet fully codified into law (though it will be if not nipped in the bud soon), you can be sure that things are certainly moving fast as, before our very eyes, the right to free speech is being torn to shreds by means of censorship across social media and the internet, cancelling all opinions deemed unacceptable to the ruling class.
The Conspiracy to Subvert Conspiracy Theorizing
This should not come as a surprise, as Biden’s new addition to the Department of Homeland Security is a bizarre figure named Cass Sunstein who famously described exactly what this was going to look like in his infamous 2008 report ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (co-authored with Harvard Law School’s Adrien Vermeule). In this under-appreciated study, the duo foresaw the greatest threat to the ruling elite took the form of “conspiracy theorizing” within the American population using as examples of this delusion: the idea that the government had anything to do with the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, or the planning and execution of 9-11.
Just to be clear, conspiracy literally means ‘two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention’.
The fact that Vermeule has made a legal career arguing that laws should be interpreted not by the “intentions” of lawgivers, but rather according to cost-benefit analysis gives us a useful insight into the deranged mind of a technocrat and the delusional reasoning that denies the very thing which has shaped literally ALL of human history.
In their “scholarly” essay, the authors wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” After establishing his case for the threat of conspiracies, Sunstein says that “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”.
Not one to simply draw criticisms, the pro-active Sunstein laid out five possible strategies which the social engineers managing the population could deploy to defuse this growing threat saying:
“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”.
(I’ll let you think about which of these prescriptions were put into action over the ensuing 12 years.)
Cass Sunstein was particularly sensitive to this danger largely because: 1) he was a part of a very ugly conspiracy himself and 2) he is a world-renowned behaviorist.
The Problem of Reality for Behaviorists
As an economic behaviorist and lawyer arguing that all “human rights” should be extended to animals (blurring the line separating human dynamics from the law of the jungle as any fascist must), Sunstein has spent decades trying to model human behavior with computer simulations in an effort to “scientifically manage” such behavior.
As outlined in his book Nudge (co-authored with Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Richard Thaler), Sunstein “discovered” that people tend to organize their behavioral patterns around certain fundamental drives, such as the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain, and certain Darwinian drives for sex, popularity, desire for conformity, desire for novelty, and greed.
One of the key principles of economic behaviorism which is seen repeated in such popular manuals as Freakonomics, Nudge, Predictably Irrational, The Wisdom of Crowds, and Animal Spirits, is that humans are both biologically determined due to their Darwinian impulses, but, unlike other animals, have the fatal flaw of being fundamentally irrational at their core. Since humans are fundamentally irrational, says the behaviorist, it is requisite that an enlightened elite impose “order” upon society while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice from below. This is the underlying assumption of Karl Popper’s Open Society doctrine, which was fed to Popper’s protégé George Soros and which animates Soros’ General Theory of Reflexivity and his Oxford-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
This was at the heart of Obama’s science Czar John Holdren’s call for world government in his 1977 Ecoscience (co-written with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) where the young misanthrope envisioned a future utopic world governed by a scientifically managed master-class saying:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable”.
The caveat: If Darwinian impulses mixed with irrational “animal spirits” were truly all that animated those systems which behaviorists wish to map and manipulate (aka: “nudge” with rewards, punishments), then a scientific priesthood would indeed be a viable and perhaps necessary way to organize the world.
Fortunately, reality is a bit more elegant and dignified than behaviorists wish to admit.
Why Computer Modellers Hate Metaphysics
On a closer inspection of history, we find countless instances where people shape their individual and group behavior around sets of ideas that transcend controllable material impulses. When this happens, those individuals or groups tend to resist adapting to environments created for them. This incredible phenomenon is witnessed empirically in the form of the American Revolution, Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, Civil Rights movements, and even some bold manifestations of anti-lockdown protests now underway around the world.
Among the most troublesome of those variables which upset computer models are: “Conscience”, “Truth”, “Intentions”, “Soul”, “Honor”, “God”, “Justice”, “Patriotism”, “Dignity”, and “Freedom”.
Whenever individuals shape their identities around these very real, though immaterial (aka: “metaphysical”) principles, they cannot be “nudged” towards pre-determined decisions that defy reason and morality. Adherence to these principles also tends to afford thinking people an important additional edge of creative insight necessary to cut through false explanatory narratives that attempt to hide lies behind the appearance of truth (aka: sophistry).
As witnessed on multiple occasions throughout history, such individuals who value the health of their souls over the intimidating (and extremely malleable) force of popular opinion, will often decide to sacrifice personal comfort and even their lives in order to defend those values which their minds and consciences deem important.
These rare, but invaluable outliers will often resist policies that threaten to undo their freedoms or undermine the basis of their society’s capacity to produce food, and energy for their children and grandchildren. What is worse, is that their example is often extremely contagious causing other members of the sheep class to believe that they too are human and endowed with unalienable rights which should be defended.
The Intentions Ordering World History
Perhaps, most “destructive” of all is that these outlier people tend to look for abstract things like “causes” in historical dynamics shaping the context of their present age, as well as their current geopolitical environment.
Whenever this type of thinking is done, carefully crafted narratives fed to the masses by an enlightened elite will often fail in their powers to persuade, since seekers after truth soon come to realize that IDEAS and intentions (aka: conspiracies) shape our past, present and future. When the dominating intentions shaping society’s trajectory is in conformity with Natural Law, humanity tends to improve, freedoms increase, culture matures and evil loses its hold. Inversely, when the intentions animating history are out of conformity with Natural Law, the opposite happens as societies lose their moral and material fitness to survive and slip ever more quickly into dark ages.
While sitting in a jail in Birmingham Alabama in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described this reality eloquently when he said:
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust… One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”
From Plato’s organization of his Academy and efforts to shape a Philosopher King to beat the forces of the Persian Empire, to Cicero’s efforts to save the Roman Republic, to Augustine’s battles to save the soul of Christianity all the way to our present age, conspiracies for the good and counter-conspiracies for evil have shaped history. If one were to begin an investigation into history without an understanding that ideas and intentions caused the trajectory of history, as is the standard practice among history professors dominant in todays world, then one would become incapable of understanding anything essential about one’s own reality.
It is irrelevant that behaviorists and other fascists wish their victims to believe that history just happens simply because random short-sighted impulses kinetically drive events on a timeline- the truth of my claim exists for any serious truth seeker to discover it for themselves.
Back to our Present Sad State of Affairs
Now we all know that Sunstein spent the following years working as Obama’s Regulatory Czar alongside an army of fellow behaviorists who took control of all levers of policy making as outlined by Time Magazine’s April 13, 2009 article ‘How Obama is Using the Science of Change’. As the fabric of western civilization, and traditional values of family, gender, and even macro economic concepts like “development” were degraded during this period, the military industrial complex had a field day as Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power worked closely with Susan Rice in the promotion of “humanitarian bombings” of small nations under Soros’ Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
After the Great Reset Agenda was announced in June 2020, Sunstein was recruited to head the propaganda wing of the World Health Organization known as the WHO Technical Advisory Group where his skills in mass behavior modification was put to use in order to counteract the dangerous spread of conspiracy theories that persuaded large chunks of the world population that COVID-19 was part of a larger conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and impose world government.
The head of WHO described Sunstein’s mandate in the following terms:
“In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”
Today, hundreds of Obama-era behaviorists have streamed back into influential positions of government under the new “scientifically managed”, evidence-based governance coming back to life under Biden promising to undo the dark days of President Trump.
Ideologues who have been on record calling for world government, the elimination of the sick and elderly (see Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Why I Hope to Die At 75), and population control are streaming back into positions of influence. If you think that anything they have done to return to power is unlawful, or antithetical to the principles of the Constitution, then these technocrats want you to know that you are a delusional conspiracy theorist and as such, represent a potential threat to yourself and the society of which you are but a part.
If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist.
If you believe that the U.S. government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment dolled out to any typical terrorist.
It appears that the many comforts we have taken for granted over the past 50-year drunken stupor called “globalization” are quickly coming to an end, and thankfully not one but two opposing intentions for what the new operating system will be are actively vying for control. This clash was witnessed in stark terms during the January 2021 Davos Summit, where Xi Jinping and Putin’s call for a new system of win-win cooperation, multipolarity and long-term development offset the unipolar zero-sum ideologues of the west seeking to undo the foundations of industrial civilization.
Either way you look at it, conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
Between the thought police and the Ministry of Truth, the tyrants expect to either bring you into compliance with their lawlessness or eliminate you from society.
The Democrat impeachment case against President Trump began with the false claim that “President Trump incited a violent mob to attack the United States Capitol during the Joint Session” and concluded with the false claim that he had engaged in “insurrection or rebellion.”
In between these two false claims lay a multitude of lies, misstatements of law, exaggerations of events, false conclusions, and fundamental attacks on our entire political system.
It’s no wonder that despite the media hysteria and political pressure, President Trump was acquitted of a baseless charge based on arm-waving, pulpit-pounding, zero witnesses and fewer facts. The Democrats littered their case with terms like “incitement”, “insurrection”, and “sedition” using them in the way that totalitarian regimes do to mean opposition to the regime.
President Trump’s defense team had the facts on their side while the Democrats had the lies.
The Democrat impeachment case falsely claimed that President Trump “imperiled” Congress.
The alleged peril came from an “armed, angry, and dangerous” crowd whose members, according to the Democrats, were waving “many American flags wielded” because “they believed they were performing a patriotic act in the service of their President.”
Only Democrats could use American flags and patriotism as evidence of a threat.
Meanwhile, poll numbers showed that in September, 41% of Democrats believed that there could be justification for violence if President Trump won.
Left-wing groups had been prepared to “flood the streets” with protesters.
The Working Families Party had, according to theNew York Times, had “been in touch with bail funds that could be activated in response to mass arrests” and even had a “fund to raise money for the families of anyone killed in violence on or around Election Day.”
Preparing for protests so violent that people would die is angry and dangerous. So does 4 in 10 Democrats believing that violence could be justified if President Trump won the election.
But the Democrats and their media have built a false narrative to smear Republicans as violent.
Democrats, from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez on down, have claimed without evidence that they were on the verge of being murdered. While AOC’s claim is particularly absurd, there were no shots fired during the battles between police and rioters. The only weapons used were the familiar ones from many riots: fists, shields, poles, assorted bludgeons, and chemical sprays.
President Trump addressed a crowd that he knew “was armed and primed for violence,” the House Democrat impeachment managers wrote in their rebuttal.
In their original impeachment, they contend that, “armed insurrectionists breached the Capitol.”
It’s an odd sort of insurrection and coup in which the rebels never actually fire a shot in a country with some 400 million firearms. The Capitol Police drew guns and in one case used them, but nobody actually took any shots at them. Democrats, their media, and their political allies have repeatedly claimed without evidence that Senator Mitt Romney and others were on the verge of being killed. Yet the only violence that took place was between rioters and police.
The impeachment managers claim that “many feared for their lives”, but showed no basis for it.
Journalists and photographers were able to capture photos and videos of the rioters, most notably the QAnon Shaman, without being assaulted. The one single incident of an attack on a journalist involved an AP photographer attacked outside when he was mistaken for Antifa.
No one seems to have touched a reporter inside Congress, despite partisan hostility, leaving little basis for believing that anyone was going to physically assault House or Senate members.
Let alone kill them.
The Democrats have repeatedly played on the idea that Senate members, including Romney, were within minutes of being killed in order to bias the jury. That’s cynical and dishonest.
“President Trump is personally responsible for inciting an armed attack on our seat of government that imperiled the lives of the Vice President, Members of Congress and our families, and those who staff and serve the Legislative Branch,” the Democrats concluded.
The only arms were physical bludgeons used in exchanges with Capitol police. The Democrat misuse of “arms” to refer to poles and shields is deliberately misleading. The Democrats insist on claiming that the lives of everyone were imperiled, but they never actually proved it.
There was no insurrection. Nor was there a coup. Once inside, there was nothing more than vandalism. A group of protesters had made a strategic move to breach the Capitol, but once inside no efforts were made to secure the premises, to set up a defensive perimeter, let alone any of the fantastic claims that hostages would be taken or executions would be carried out.
Once inside, there was no plan. Offices were broken into. Some petty vandalism occurred. A few rioters posed for photos. Others cooperated with Capitol Police. The atmosphere was indistinguishable from student occupations of campuses in the sixties with no one having much of a clue what to do once they were inside the building itself and there was no one to protest.
There’s no excuse for violently assaulting police officers. But that’s a riot, not an insurrection.
The Democrat impeachment falsely transforms a protest and a riot into an insurrection with no actual evidence that the protesters were there to do anything more than protest a stolen election beyond a few people chanting violent slogans that they made.no attempt to actually carry out.
President Trump couldn’t be convicted of an insurrection that never happened. Redefining protests and riots as insurrections and support for them as incitement would mean impeaching nearly every Democrat who has held elected office in the last 60 years.
And the evidence for the incitement was even thinner than the evidence for the insurrection.
“He launched into an inflammatory speech that was bound to result in the violence that followed,” the Democrat rebuttal argued.
Democrats keep mixing inflammatory and incitement together. Political speeches, including their own impeachment histrionics, are frequently inflammatory. They’re not incitement.
The Democrat impeachment case hinged on President Trump using the word “fight” to his supporters, while ignoring the fact that he told them to protest peacefully. Democrat politicians repeatedly urge people to fight for their agendas. If using “fight” in a speech is incitement, then every politician in the country is guilty of incitement and can be impeached over it.
That’s a point that President Trump’s defense team made with a video highlight reel.
The Democrat impeachment case falsely claimed that President Trump had made “a militaristic demand that they must fight to stop what was occurring in the Capitol at that very moment.”
If telling people to “fight like hell” is “militaristic”, then what of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s “Now is the time to fight like hell” speech, and former Senator Barbara Boxer praising Senator Harry Reid for being willing to “fight like hell”? Is fighting like hell “militaristic” only when Trump says it?
The Democrat case accusing President Trump of incitement even began by noting that, “President Trump praised Giuliani, saying ‘he’s got guts, he fights.’” Does that mean that Giuliani physically assaults people, or that fighting refers to aggressively working toward a political goal?
It’s bad enough that the Democrats insisted that fighting is literal when Trump said it, but a figure of speech when they say it, but they also have to insist that when President Trump said it, it was both a figure of speech and a militaristic call for violence whenever it’s convenient for them.
“President Trump said that those marching toward the Capitol should do so ‘peacefully,’” the Democrats conceded, but then argued that he then spoke “using highly inflammatory rhetoric—exactly the kind of language calculated to incite violence”. What sort of rhetoric?
“Fight like hell”.
The Democrat argument for incitement ignored the literal meaning of what President Trump said, insisting that the Senate shouldn’t take him seriously when he called for a peaceful march, but should assume that when he said, “fight like hell”, he was calling for a violent insurrection.
“The tenor of his speech (and his repeated demand that they ‘fight like hell’ and ‘show strength’ to save their country) belied any desire for a peaceful demonstration,” the Democrats argued.
Their case for incitement rested on the indefinable “tenor” which is a wholly subjective argument that ignored what President Trump actually said. The Democrats then made the even more dangerous argument that Trump incited the violence because violence then took place.
“The insurrectionists themselves made clear that they understood that they were following President Trump’s commands,” the Democrats argue. Also, the Son of Sam believed that he was following the commands of a dog. Charles Manson believed that a Beatles album was telling him to start a race war. Democrats claimed to be following the will of the Framers by unconstitutionally impeaching President Trump. The deranged criminal behavior of the Son of Sam, Manson, and the Democrats is not the fault of the dog, the Beatles, or the Framers.
“Videos of the crowd eliminate any doubt that President Trump’s words in fact incited the crowd to commit violence,” the Democrats argued, because some people responded with, “take the Capitol right now!” That’s in line with the New York Times’ ethos that intent doesn’t matter. But the Democrats are making the even worse argument that President Trump’s intent can be inferred from the response of some members of the crowd who called for taking the Capitol.
President Trump had never called for taking the Capitol. He had called for a peaceful protest outside the Capitol. Nor did the Democrat managers ever explain how he would have benefited from anyone breaking into the Capitol, let alone “taking the Capitol”.
“President Trump’s speech did not promote election security—it exhorted a mob to attack Congress in order to overturn a free and fair election,” the Democrats falsely claimed.
At no point in time did President Trump exhort anyone to attack Congress. And how would breaking into the Capitol even possibly overturn an election? It wouldn’t and it didn’t.
The Democrat case rested on a complete disconnect between what they accuse President Trump of wanting to do and what any possible outcome of doing so would actually accomplish.
That is its fundamental structural weakness. It’s why impeachment had to fail.
To buy the Democrat case is to contend that the alleged insurrection would have overturned an election. The Democrats never actually explain how it could have done so. They’ve constructed a foolish and dishonest house of cards in which words mean whatever they want them to, evidence never actually needs to be presented, and motives never have to line up with reality.
President Trump wanted an election protest. He did not want an assault. And he certainly didn’t benefit from the violent confrontations between some protesters and police. Just the opposite.
Democrats had protested the 2016 election certification, both legislatively and physically, to disrupt the count without being accused, as the Democrat Impeachment managers accused President Trump of placing his “own political ambition above our Nation’s commitment to democracy” and thus having become guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
If challenging an election is a high crime and misdemeanor, the Democrats are guilty.
But, once again, whether it’s fighting like hell or challenging an election, it’s not a crime when Democrats do it. The very same case in which Democrats claimed that challenging an election is somehow a crime, they repeated the false claim that, “Gore and many of his political supporters thought he would have won the Presidency had all of Florida’s votes been properly counted.”
Democrats can imply that Florida’s votes were not properly counted and that the election was stolen in the same breath in which they contend that claiming an election was stolen is an attack on the country and incitement to violence. But that’s the animating hypocrisy of the Democrats.
Impeachment failed. But then it was always going to fail because it was meant to fail.
Just like the Russia hoax, impeachment served as a pretext for national security abuses. It allowed them to deploy troops in D.C. until March. And now they’re plotting to extend it until the fall.
The troop deployment is itself theater. Much like impeachment, it creates the atmosphere of a national emergency that allows the Democrats to investigate political opponents as enemies of the state.
The Democrats have wrongly described a riot as an insurrection. That is the lie that goes to the heart of their case because it also depends on accusing President Trump of plotting to benefit in some way from the riot. But it’s also their justification for a national emergency.
Like their previous Russia smear, the accusations depend on outrage and false claims of an urgent threat because the Democrats have no actual evidence to back up any of their charges.
The Democrats falsely claimed that the 2016 election had been stolen by a Russian conspiracy. After four years of threats, smears, and riots, they belatedly declared that election conspiracies are an incitement to violence. That’s because they were the ones inciting the violence all along.
The Russian hoax and the insurrection hoax are both pretexts for a state of emergency.
Impeachment, like the Russia election hoax, never proved anything, never explained how one thing led to another, and never laid out credible motives. Instead, it followed the Democrat pattern of declaring an emergency and accusing anyone who questions it of treason.
And that has always been the underlying motive.
The Democrats went from attacking an election on false grounds to criminalizing challenging an election. But their one consistent theme has been to accuse their political opponents of posing a national security threat, pushing a state of emergency, and moving to criminalize dissent.
Impeachment, like the thousands of soldiers occupying D.C., was political theater. The reality behind the theater is meant to sweep away the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, due process and free elections as if they had never existed under the guise of fighting domestic extremism.
There is an axiom known as “Hanlon’s razor” that holds “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” It is similar to the more well-known “Occam’s razor,” the principle that the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. As an instinctual conservative, and as someone who strives not to be constantly outraged, I find these rules of thumb quite useful for moderating my thinking. It is simply better, and oftentimes more accurate, to first assume that our political or ideological opponents are ignorant but well-meaning rather than the opposite.
Yet stupidity is not without consequence, and while preferable to malevolence, it can be just as harmful. Take, for instance, the San Francisco public school board. Most people don’t pay much attention to any school board other than the one directly involved with their children (if even then), but the San Francisco Unified School District board has managed to make national news multiple times over the past two weeks for several controversial actions, highlighting the way school boards across the country, with little scrutiny, have a big effect on what and how students learn. Each of these moves was made with an explicit purpose of pursuing so-called “anti-racism” and far-left notions of social justice, which, while bad for students’ education, is not altogether unusual. What made these local decisions become national points of discussion was how utterly inane the reasoning behind these and other similar decisions revealed themselves to be.
Put frankly: There isn’t much thought put into many decisions that shape American education from an early age. San Francisco gives us a window into how this happens.
Late last month, the school board voted 6-1 to change the names of 44 district schools, including those named after George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and San Francisco mayor and longtime California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. According to the board, anyone who had “engaged in the subjugation and enslavement of human beings; or who oppressed women, inhibiting societal progress; or whose actions led to genocide; or who otherwise significantly diminished the opportunities of those amongst us to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” should not have schools named after them. Washington and Jefferson were axed for owning slaves, Lincoln because of the treatment of Native Americans during his presidency. Feinstein’s name was removed because when she was mayor of San Francisco in the ’80s, her administration replaced a Confederate flag at a civic center historical display after it was torn down by a protester.Recommended For YouThe COVID-19 restrictions in every state
To be clear, changing the name of a public school is different than, say, tearing down a statue, and school names are routinely changed to honor particularly influential teachers, principals, or community figures. But the reason for renaming matters, and the school district’s fails on all counts. Reducing Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln to a single disqualifying sin is a blatant erasure of history and of each one’s positive contributions to our country, something I believe most reasonable people outside of certain Ivy League graduate school classrooms would agree with. The criterion for Feinstein’s removal is just as hollow, albeit for a different reason, as the incident she was apparently punished for boils down to executing simple mayoral duties. Willie L. Brown Jr. Middle School, named after the longtime San Francisco mayor, was also changed because, according to the committee, he was “responsible for much of gentrification in SF while he was mayor.”
It gets worse. The district board committee published its reasoning for each of the 44 name changes in a Google doc publicly available online. Several of them rely on singular sourcing from Wikipedia — you know, that website teachers tell students not to get their information from without verifying elsewhere — and several of these disqualifying “facts” are provably wrong. For instance, as Joe Eskenazi recounted in San Francisco’s Mission Local, “While reading out a Wikipedia entry on the beliefs of 19th-century poet and diplomat James Russell Lowell, a committee member stated that ‘he did not want Black people to vote.’ In point of fact, a scholarly biography of the high school’s namesake states that … he ‘unequivocally advocated giving the ballot to the recently freed slaves.’”
Paul Revere’s name was removed from another school, nominally because of his connection to the Penobscot Expedition. This was a somewhat disastrous Revolutionary War naval mission against the British in 1779, but the committee inaccurately convinced itself during the meeting it was somehow related to the “colonization” of the Penobscot Indian tribe. “This is a telephone game-like invention of fact, and never happened,” reports Eskenazi.
One might think that consulting a historian would have been beneficial to this process. Yet committee chairman Jeremiah Jeffries openly scoffed at the idea. “What would be the point? History is written and documented pretty well across the board. … Based on our criteria, it’s a very straightforward conversation. And so, no need to bring historians forward to say — they either pontificate and list a bunch of reasons why, or [say] they had great qualities. Neither are necessary in this discussion.” Much of history is indeed documented “pretty well across the board,” yet that didn’t stop these pompous cretins from getting easily verifiable facts wrong.
In an interview earlier this month, the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner asked San Francisco Board of Education President Gabriela Lopez about the obvious flaws in this adjudication process, including why the committee did not ask any historians to testify. The interview is worth quoting extensively because it reveals the staggering depth of idiocy at play here.
When asked about whether historians should have been involved due to the fact that the committee got facts wrong, such as Revere’s involvement with the Penobscot Expedition, Lopez replied:
“I see what you’re saying. So, for me, I guess it’s just the criteria was created to show if there were ties to these specific themes, right? White supremacy, racism, colonization, ties to slavery, the killing of indigenous people, or any symbols that embodied that. And the committee shared that these are the names that have these ties. And so, for me, at this moment, I have the understanding we have to do the teaching, but also, I do agree that we shouldn’t have these ties, and this is a way of showing it.”
This is, of course, not an answer to Chotiner’s question, but just a regurgitation of woke buzzwords. And to his credit, Chotiner continued with this line of questioning, explaining, “Part of the problem is that the ties may not be what the committee said they were. That’s why I brought it up.” To which Lopez replied:
“So, then you go into discrediting the work that they’re doing, and the process that they put together in order to create this list. So, when we begin to have these conversations and we’re pointing to that, and we’re given the reasoning, and they’re sharing why they made this choice and why they’re putting it out there, I don’t want to get into a process where we then discredit the work that this group has done.”
Lopez believes that pointing out factual errors is somehow “discrediting the work” done by the committee, when, in fact, it is those errors made by the committee that discredit the work. Imagine being a student and telling the teacher grading your exam that marking wrong answers is “discrediting your work” and thus unacceptable. Worse still is that Lopez and the committee are completely uninterested in the work being factual, thorough, or thoughtful, but rather simply that it was done, and done by members of certain communities — that is, with a focus on identitarian box-checking rather than expertise.
“So, none of the errors that I read to you about previous entries made you worried that maybe this was done in a slightly haphazard way?” asked Chotiner. She replied:
“No, because I’ve already shared with you that the people who have contributed to this process are also part of a community that is taking it as seriously as we would want them to. And they’re contributing through diverse perspectives and experiences that are often not included, and that we need to acknowledge.”
An increasingly common observation is that “anti-racism” is treated like a religion by its woke adherents. This is undoubtedly true, but oftentimes, it is more blind and thoughtless. Christians and Jews and Muslims hold their beliefs to be true, but they do not assume that others must believe them too simply via fiat; instead, they marshal arguments to defend or convert. The way that Lopez and others of her ilk employ empty, anti-racist dogma is more like magic than religion.
In the interview, Lopez doesn’t seem to understand why Chotiner continues to question her on whether it matters if the committee’s facts are accurate because she already said the magic words: “We did the work.” Magic does not have to have internal logic because it’s inherently a cheat; it trumps the normal operating procedures of reality. It’s not a thing you question; it’s a thing you accept and move on from.
Like magic, these anti-racist tropes and woke buzzwords are employed, almost purposefully, to cheat the need to explain yourself beyond invoking the special words. But in the real world, words mean things (at least for now). Vague assertions without fact or acknowledgment of process or error are not how education is meant to function.
Will Wilkinson, formerly of the Niskanen Center, recently tweeted, “I don’t understand why people get so hyperbolically distressed about a school board somewhere they don’t live changing the names of schools for dumb reasons. It’s embarrassing to see.” For starters, pointing out that something stupid is, in fact, stupid is not the same as getting “hyperbolically distressed.” But more importantly, people have focused on this issue because they understand that slippery slopes are the way of our world. The slipshod method and specious reasoning employed by the San Francisco school district to remove Washington and Lincoln from schools is straight out of the anti-racist playbook and is not limited to one district or state or to the issue of school names.
These bumbling activist educators are more than happy to make sweeping changes on what is and is not acceptable to teach students based on nothing more than their inaccurate and unverified notions. Along with renaming the schools, the district also voted recently to abandon the academic admissions standards for Lowell High School, the city’s highest-achieving public school. The resolution explicitly sought to move the school’s focus away from academic excellence toward anti-racism, instead “framing its work around questions” such as “Where do we see tenets of white supremacy culture and patriarchy showing up … at Lowell High School?” and “How can we leverage Ethnic Studies, Equity Studies and Black Studies in this work?”
In October, the San Francisco Board of Education’s vice president, Alison Collins, spoke about the need to move away from ideas of “meritocracy” and academic achievement: “When we’re talking about … meritocracy, especially meritocracy based on standardized testing, I’m just going to say it, in this day and age we can’t mince words: Those are racist systems,” said Collins. “If you’re going to say that merit is fair, it’s the antithesis of fair, and it’s the antithesis of just.” Claiming that meritocracy and achievement are somehow related to whiteness is a preposterous yet pervasive idea in anti-racist circles. The KIPP charter school network recently abandoned its founding “Work Hard, Be Nice” motto because, it claimed, it was at odds with being “actively antiracist.” And marshaling such arguments, leftist reformers have taken aim at standardized tests and admissions criteria in schools from San Francisco to New York. Never mind that admissions methods that don’t rely on standardized test scores are actually often more discriminatory and subject to abuse — magic words spoken, analysis over.
In the background of all this leftist moralizing nonsense is the crucial fact that district leaders in San Francisco and elsewhere still refuse to open schools. As San Francisco Mayor London Breed stated following the school board vote to rename the schools, “What I cannot understand is why the School Board is advancing a plan to have all these schools renamed by April, when there isn’t a plan to have our kids back in the classroom by then.” Meanwhile, as reported by the San FranciscoChronicle, the district’s black, Asian, and Latino students are suffering tremendous academic learning setbacks at the hands of ineffectual online remote learning.
These are blatant ideologues, yes, but even the most ardent zealot can be interested in what is in students’ best interest. The bigger issue for parents to realize is that a great many of the people in charge of their children’s education are simply too stupid to know what that is.
In parts of “Aufheben der Kultur”, different aspects of Cultural Marxism have been explained. A thought that comes to mind after reading about Cultural Marxism is, how in the world did America succumb so quickly and thoroughly to this evil? The short answer: our children were/are vaccinated against liberty from the day they start kindergarten. I will expand and try to elucidate this below.
One person who doesn’t get quoted much in the discussion of early education designed by the Frankfurt School is Mary Parker Follett, yet, she lays out, in black and white, what she sees as the new state (which is the title of one of her books). This is an excellent example:
The training for the new democracy must be from the cradle – through nursery, school and play, and on and on through every activity of our life. Citizenship is not to be learned in good government classes or current events courses or lessons in civics. It is to be acquired only through those modes of living and acting which shall teach us how to grow the social consciousness. This should be the object of all day school education, of all night school education, of all our supervised recreation, of all our family life, of our club life, of our civic life. (Mary Parker Follett 1918, The New State, p. 363)
Follet believed that there is no such thing as an individual conscience, that, “We can have no true moral judgment except as we live our lives with others. . . our individual conscience must be incorporated in a national conscience as one of its constituent members.”
And what does she think of individualism and nationalism? “. . . as we see now that a nation cannot be healthy and virile if it is merely protecting the rights of its members, so we must see that we can have no sound condition of world affairs merely by the protection of each individual nation – that is the old theory of individual rights. Each nation must play its part in some larger whole. (National rights) are as obsolete as the individual rights of the last century. . . In our present international law, a sovereign nation is one that is independent of other nations – surely a complete legal fiction.”
Follett’s book, The New State, tells us what kind of community we will have and where individuals fit in (not). It is the outline of what will be taught (or not) to our children. That is shown, quite openly, by Brock Chisholm, the First Secretary General of World Health Organization (WHO):
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.
We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize the unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt and fear, commonly known as sin . . . which produces so much of the social maladjustment and unhappiness in the world. For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poisonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests.
“Thou shalt become as gods, knowing good and evil”, good and evil, with which to keep children under control, with which to prevent free thinking, with which to impose local and familial and national loyalties and with which to blind children to their glorious intellectual heritage.
Misguided by authoritarian dogma, bound by exclusive faith, stunted by inculcated loyalty, torn by frantic heresy . . . and loaded down by the weight of guilt and fear engendered by its own original promises, the unfortunate human race, deprived . . . of its reasoning power and its natural capacity to enjoy the satisfaction of its natural urges, struggles along under its ghastly self-imposed burden. The results, the inevitable results, are frustration, inferiority, neurosis and inability to enjoy living, to reason clearly or to make a world fit to live in.
Man’s freedom to observe and to think freely . . . has been destroyed or crippled by local certainties . . . moralities . . . personal salvation . . . frequently masquerading as love. Brock Chisholm, Psychiatry, February 1946, pp. 7-8.
John Dewey, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, the Rothschilds, the British Royal family, the Frankfurt School, and many others had their hands in the building of our public school system to achieve the goals of molding our nation into one of useful idiots and useless eaters.
Exactly what John Dewey heralded at the onset of the twentieth century has indeed happened. Our once highly individualized nation has evolved into a centrally managed village, an agora made up of huge special interests which regard individual voices as irrelevant. The masquerade is managed by having collective agencies speak through particular human beings. Dewey said this would mark a great advance in human affairs, but the net effect is to reduce men and women to the status of functions in whatever subsystem they are placed. Public opinion is turned on and off in laboratory fashion. All this in the name of social efficiency, one of the two main goals of forced schooling.Dewey called this transformation “the new individualism.”John Taylor Gatto.
Who was John Dewey? A Fabian Socialist, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Marxist, and created the Progressive Education Association in 1919, and co-authored Humanist Manifesto I, in 1933. In his Manifesto, he states:
Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following Human Manifesto (which is found at the bottom of this document).
John Dewey taught “Functionalism”; that “man is without purpose and he is a product of his or her experience and nothing else. Thus, all values must be found within the social context. Values therefore are relative and ethics are based on custom, inclination, or utilitarianism.”
What has it taken that we have almost reach this state now? The cultural Marxists have put enormous amounts of time, money, and effort into molding the American people – as well as much of the rest of the world — into compliant, submissive, spineless, empty-headed beings. Key foundations here in the U.S. took charge of un-educating our children. The Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations were at the start and at the heart of the corruption of our school system. Conclusions from the Reece Committee’s 1954 investigations of tax-exempt foundations using their funds for other than originally intended purposes, i.e., to subvert U.S. education:
The committee’s final report concluded that with a few exceptions (such as the Institute for Pacific Relations) these tax-exempt institutions had not directly supported organizations that supported communism, but that institutions including the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds to promote causes that were “subversive” by the committee’s (and the Brookings Institute’s) definition of the term. Namely, causes that would promote a form of oligarchical collectivism.
Among the most notable findings of the Reece Committee:
From “1933–1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a ‘revolution’. They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this ‘revolution’ had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate. In seeking to explain this unprecedented phenomenon, subsequent studies pursued by the staff clearly showed it could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it” (Dodd, 6). Thus, influencing educational curriculum is of the utmost importance to advancing revolutionary policies.
Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations had used their funds for grants with the following agendas in mind:
“Directing education in the United States toward an international viewpoint and discrediting the traditions to which it [formerly] had been dedicated.
Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.
Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.
Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature” (Dodd, 7).
The American Historical Association had issued a report in 1934 “which concluded that the day of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of collectivism and an increase in the authority of the State” (Dodd, 10).
The Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council pushed educational curriculum that serves to indoctrinate American students to forego the freedom of the individual and “substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will – presumably in the interest of all” (Dodd, 11).
At a later meeting of the head of the Ford Foundation, Rowan Gaither, said to Norman Dodd:
Mr. Dodd, all of us here at the policy making levels of the foundations have at one time or another served in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, CIA forerunner) or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We operated under those same directives. The substance under which we operate is that we shall use our grantmaking power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
Looking at today’s textbooks is not enough to understand what is going on in our schools. While reviewing many of them can actually make you ill, when you see the how and why these things are being taught (and have been taught for decades now, gradually working up to the outright lies, omissions and brainwashing) you will have a better understanding of the evil behind our public-school instruction.
Our teacher’s associations and others involved in education have been dumbing down our children for a hundred years. In 1928 at a Progressive Education Association meeting with John Dewey and others, a teacher named O.A. Nelson comments:
The sole work of the group was to destroy our schools! We spent one hour and forty-five minutes discussing the so-called “Modern Math.” At one point I objected because there was too much memory work, and math is reasoning; not memory. Dr. Ziegler turned to me and said, “Nelson, wake up! That is what we want . . . a math that the pupils cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!” That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. A milder course by Dr. Breckner was substituted but it was also worthless, as far as understanding math was concerned. The radical change was introduced in 1952. It was the one we are using now. So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don’t blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless. ( Charlotte Iserbyt Deliberately Dumbing Down of America, p. 38.)
In 1965, The Department of Health, Education and Welfare commissioned Michigan State University to write a report, Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP), that is designed not to only change our children’s values, attitudes and beliefs, but with far more malevolence (if you can conceive something even more evil than that) this program will make most of them into brain-dead slaves.
The Protestant Ethic will atrophy as more and more enjoy varied leisure and guaranteed sustenance. Work as the means (illegible) end of living will diminish in importance except for a few with exceptional motivation, drive, or aspiration. No major source of a sense of worth and dignity will replace the Protestant Ethic. Most people will tend to be hedonistic, and a dominant elite will provide “bread and circuses” to keep social dissension and disruption at a minimum.
Consequences
A small elite will carry society’s burdens. The resulting impersonal manipulation of most people’s lifestyles will be softened by provisions for pleasure seeking and guaranteed physical necessities. Participatory democracy in the American-ideal mold will mainly disappear. The worth and dignity of individuals will be endangered on every hand. Only exceptional individuals will be able to maintain a sense of worth and dignity.
I could stop here and you would have read more than you need to comprehend what our government plans for us. Don’t even say “conspiracy theory” here. This is an official document. You have to admit, they have chutzpah; they put it out there for us to see. Not immediately after they wrote it, but now you can download the entire document. SEE IT. Go to the links and read it. “No major source of a sense of worth and dignity will replace the Protestant Ethic.” This is one of their goals. Can they be anything other than evil? Every sentence in those two paragraphs is damning.
But I won’t stop yet. On page 251 (p. 284 of PDF) we see Hitler’s progeny: Greater need to be able to work with children who are biologically superior (years needed before biological improvements will be reflected in the kinds of persons in the professions.)
Page 252 (285 of PDF)
Need to help students develop attitudes compatible with societal needs . . .
You don’t mind the government, through our schools, changing the values, attitudes and beliefs of your children?
On page 247 (280 of PDF) you will read: For those who wish some structure, the following is provided. There are five broad categories with several sub-categories:
Futurism as a social tool and decision making by an elite 2.Population factors a. Population concentrations b. Increasing youthfulness of the population and generational gap 3. Biological capabilities a. Biological capabilities in controlling inherited characteristics and potentialities b. Body repair and health improvements 4. Man and interaction dynamics a. Shifting social values b. Governance and services by varied agencies, organizations, and enterprises. c. A controlling elite d. Conflict and cooperation among peoples at home and abroad e. International arrangements and nationalism 5. Man’s technical and natural resources a. Knowledge explosion and means of analyzing, processing, storing, and retrieving ideas and information b. Systems approach and cybernetics c. Diffusion of prosperity and increased social mobility d. Communications capabilities and potentialities for opinion control e. Transportation capabilities (supplemented by communications capabilities. f. Nuclear power g. Space and underwater explorations h. Environmental pollution
Planning to overturn the values of the Great American Experiment, the writers of this document have conceived a Brave New World that no longer sees values in the works of our Forefathers. They are renouncing the Judeo-Christian/Western Culture values that gave freedom to all who resided here and are inculcating the anti-human, anti-freedom values promoted through so-called social justice and global government.
There is little doubt that environments do change. To recognize present and future environments one must know the sources of change which create a new environment. Technology is the major source of change. It opens up possibilities of manipulating, mastering and transforming nature, resources, time and space. It offers a systematic disciplined approach to objectives, permits precision and measurement and a systems concepts that may be quite contrary to traditional religious, esthetic and intuitive modes. Because of technology, decision-making can be based on such techniques as simulation model construction, linear programming, and operations research.
Seeing the demise of the US’s prestige in the world, these writers see most humans as resources now like trees and oil and cotton, just not as valuable. In the next to the last sentence below, the canons the Occident (the Western World), are to be replaced by those of the globe. In other words, moral relativism at its zenith. Instead of sovereign countries choosing the values they wish to exemplify, all countries will have all values – at least all the values promoted by the UN, i.e., no values with a moral absolute: (p240 or 273 PDF)
Other sources of change in society exist. These include the diffusion of existing goals and privileges in society, the structural development in society, and the relationship of the United States to the rest of the world. Human capital rather than financial capital is considered urgent; sociological questions about relationships of new technological modes of decision-making to the political structures of society are raised; and there tends to be a shift from the product sector of economy to that of service.
That is BSTEP, and that was almost 50 years ago. I don’t know if you can even imagine how deeply this is embedded in our school system. But that was just one of the steps to bring about global citizens whose entire beings are to protect the state and to sacrifice their lives if necessary to achieve the goal of a cultural Marxist world dominated by the Globalists.
More recently, now that the goals of BSTEP are at, or next to, completion, social justice issue are being inculcated into our school children’s psyches. Besides the issues I mentioned in Part 4 of the Cancel Culture articles, our children are being, literally, brainwashed to accept things that would have been unacceptable to almost every parent even 20 year ago. And it is all to wipe out the student’s moral values and replace them with Cancel Culture vacuity.
Social Justice and multiculturalism are major tools in the Cancel Culture arsenal. In Crimes of the Educators, Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman explain the Common Core standards on multiculturalism:
The standard . . . does not call for the Americanization of all these diverse students from different countries and cultures. What it also means is that the traditional Judeo-Christian model of American values is no longer to be upheld as the model for children to adopt in the public schools. A multicultural society is made up of many equally valid ideals that could serve as equally valid models for young Americans. No one is required any longer to conform to the once-dominant Judeo-Christian patriotic ideal. That culture is to be virtually erased from the minds of American students. . . . “As a descriptor, multiculturalism points to a condition of numerous lifestyles, values and belief systems. By treating diverse cultural groups and ways of life as equally legitimate, and by teaching about them in positive ways, legitimizing differences through various education policies and practices, self-understanding, self-esteem, intergroup understanding and harmony, and equal opportunity are promoted.”
Thus, multicultural education embraces much more than mere cultural pluralism or ethnic diversity. It legitimizes different lifestyles and values systems, thereby legitimizing moral diversity – which is simply moral anarchy. The concept of moral diversity directly contradicts the biblical concept of moral absolutes based on the Ten Commandments, on which this nation was founded.
How is multicultural education taught? It is not a course that is taught separately from the rest of the subject matter. It is, in reality, a worldview, that in the words of Theresa E. McCormick, a multicultural specialist at Emporia State University, “must permeate the total educational environment.’”
This is just an iota of the evils perpetrated on the youth of our nation in the desire to achieve a cancelled culture and, thus, bring us to full cultural Marxism.
How do we stop it? Can we? We certainly best try.
The first step would be to shut down the Department of Education. That would take away the total control of education in this country from the globalists running Washington. Next, we need to take back our schools in our towns and cities. Get rid of those school board members who are working for the globalists, and get parents and community residents who believe in the Great American Experiment.
The schoolbooks need to be burned (I never thought I would ever be in favor of burning even one book), but these need to be burned – all but one of each to remind us never to slip into this evil again. This is probably the hardest part, but we could reprint textbooks from the ‘50s for a stop-gap measure until we can get new ones with authentic history, true mathematics, and NO sick and twisted sexual education.
In 2013, along with many other parents, teachers and concerned citizens of Tennessee, I spent days reviewing the ‘proposed’ textbooks for introduction in 2017. I won’t go into the lies and brainwashing that we found in every book; and, yes, we took our findings to the State Legislature to ask them to reject these books. What did we get from it? I believe there were many people who had little or no inkling of what they were going to find in the books; that was good – a wake-up call for some. But, other than that, it was a waste of time – exactly what those promoting the books like to see happen. But, to my original point, those books should burn.
In the short and medium run, every parent who can, should homeschool their children. There are great curricula out there, Ron Paul has an excellent one. And in the meantime, as I said before, we need to take back our schools and watch over them like hawks this time. Nothing will be easy, but we allowed this to happen over 100+ years. We cannot expect to fix it in a day. Or month. Or year.
——————————————————–
John Dewey’s Humanist Manifesto
First: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Second: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation–all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
House managers said much at former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial last week about his supposedly failing to uphold the Constitution and allowing lawlessness to reign free.
Further, they argued, Trump should have condemned the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol quicker that afternoon to help quell the violence.
The lead manager, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, mentioned the Constitution in some form at least nine times in his closing and charged that Trump “failed to defend” the lawmakers.
By that same measure, President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be condemning the vandals who attacked Trump attorney Michael van der Veen’s home outside of Philadelphia on Friday night.
The right to representation is guaranteed in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights as part of a system of fundamental justice.
If Biden and Pelosi truly cared about the Constitution and upholding the rule of law, they should be condemning the vandalism.Should Biden and Pelosi condemn the vandalism of van der Veen’s home?Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
It is a form of intimidation, with the subtext, “We know where you live.”
Van der Veen became emotional when asked about the attack during a Fox News interview following Trump’s acquittal on Saturday.
“My home was attacked. I’d rather not go into that,” he said. “To answer your question, my entire family, my business, my law firm are under siege right now. I don’t really want to go into that, though. What I’d really like to do is talk about the merits of the case.”
“I’m not a controversial guy,” van der Veen added. “I’m not politically minded, so to speak.”
“I’m a trial lawyer, and I represent people’s interests in court,” he said. “And I’m disappointed that this is the result of just me doing my job.”
The Inquirer reported that van der Veen represented a client suing the Trump administration last year over changes to the U.S. Postal Service that the attorney argued would suppress mail-in votes.
The paper quoted another former client of van der Veen as saying he came off as fairly anti-Trump.
Regarding the partisan nature of the impeachment trial, the attorney told Fox News that he would like to see the country “come into the middle.”
“It’s so polarized on the left and on the right,” van der Veen argued.
One of the main themes of Biden’s inaugural address was the importance of unity.
“For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury,” he said. “No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos.
“This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity is the path forward.”
How hard would it be for Biden and Pelosi to say the vandalism of van der Veen’s home is unequivocally wrong?
It would likely increase the Democratic politicians’ stature in the eyes of most sane Americans.
Biden and/or Pelosi could say something to the effect of, “As much as I disagree with Trump and what he said about November’s election, fundamental fairness dictates that he needed representation during the impeachment trial. It’s what our Constitution guarantees.
“Trump’s attorneys should not be attacked for fulfilling this vital role. I condemn all vandalism and violence against them and promise any who engage in it will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
I can picture many former presidents — Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, either of the Bushes and perhaps even Bill Clinton — saying something like that.
If Biden or Pelosi were to do so, it would be like rain falling on the dry desert ground of the nation’s current political discourse.
Alas, I don’t anticipate they will, based on the recent history van der Veen so powerfully highlighted in his closing argument on Saturday.
“The House managers argued this week that an alleged brief delay in issuing a public statement from Mr. Trump on Jan. 6 was somehow evidence that he committed incitement or supported the violence,” he said.
“Yet for months last year, Joe Biden, Vice President [Kamala] Harris and countless of other Democrats repeatedly refused to condemn the extreme as riots were occurring daily, as businesses were being ramshackled, as neighborhoods were being burned, as bombs were exploding,” van der Veen continued.
“They repeatedly refused to tell their violent supporters to stand down. Some even suggested that the mob’s actions were justified.”
Van der Veen noted that Harris, in fact, urged her supporters to donate money to bail out violent rioters so they could go on with their lawless conduct, as she stated they should.
While condemning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, van der Veen questioned what lesson those rioters took from the several months leading up to it based on what they saw in the establishment media and from Democratic politicians.
“They apparently believed that violent mobs, destruction of property, rioting, assaulting police and vandalizing historic treasures was somehow now acceptable in the United States,” he said. “Where might they got, have gotten that idea?”
If Biden and Pelosi have any interest in dialing back the temperature in America and upholding constitutional norms, one small step they could take is disavowing the attack on van der Veen’s home.
Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, in Washington on Nov. 1
Tom Fitton, conservative activist and president of Judicial Watch, told The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders” in an interview that he believes the aim of bringing an incitement of insurrection charge against former President Donald Trump is to “chill and criminalize speech” that opposes the agenda of those on the political left.
Calling Trump’s second impeachment trial “anti-constitutional,” Fitton remarked that it amounts to an attempt to silence the voices of those raising issues of concern that run counter to certain political objectives.
“It’s really an attack on civil rights and President Trump, the civil rights of his supporters who share his concerns about the issues he’s raised,” Fitton said.
“And what the left is trying to do is outlaw opposition to its agenda. Number one on the list is concerns about election integrity,” he said. “If you raise concerns about it, you need to be de-platformed, or worse.”
House Democrats making the case for impeachment have argued that Trump set the stage for violence through repeated claims that the election results were fraudulent.
On the second day of the trial, Democrat impeachment managers laid out the case that the Jan. 6 Capitol breach was not caused by a single speech but was rather the outcome of a months-long model of messaging that sowed doubt about the election and fueled anger among Trump voters by reinforcing the view that they had been cheated out of a win and disenfranchised due to fraud.
They also alleged that Trump summoned a mob to Washington, gave the crowd its marching orders, and did nothing to stop the violence as it played out on television.
Protesters clash with police at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Julio Cortez/AP Photo)
Trump’s defense lawyers have argued that Trump urged the crowd to demonstrate peacefully, and his Jan. 6 remarks about “fighting” were mere figures of speech no different from the kind that politicians typically make, and anyway allowable under First Amendment protections.
“To claim that the president in any way wished, desired, or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie,” Michael van der Veen, one of Trump’s lawyers, said Friday.
They also accused Democrats of waging a campaign of “hatred” against Trump, of using the impeachment trial to settle political scores, and of hypocrisy. On Friday, Trump’s lawyers played a montage of clips showing Democrats, some of them senators now serving as jurors, also telling supporters to “fight,” seeking to establish a parallel with Trump’s rhetoric.
“This is ordinary political rhetoric that is virtually indistinguishable from the language that has been used by people across the political spectrum for hundreds of years,” Van der Veen said. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”
David Schoen, one of the attorneys representing Trump, said Friday that “this unprecedented effort is not about Democrats opposing political violence. It is about Democrats trying to disqualify their political opposition. It is Constitutional cancel culture.”
Asked to comment on Schoen’s remarks, Fitton said he believes they accurately reflect the intention behind the impeachment push.
“This is an effort to de-platform the president from our nation’s political life,” he said. “And to try to remove a player from the chess board who would be an effective advocate, a leader against their agenda.”
“Things you must know to be informed: YES, THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN USED TO WORK FOR GEORGE SOROS. *YES, CALIF GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM IS NANCY PELOSI’S NEPHEW. * YES, ADAM SHIFF’S SISTER IS MARRIED TO ONE OF GEORGE SOROS’ SONS. * YES, JOHN KERRY’S DAUGHTER IS MARRIED TO A MULLAH’S SON IN IRAN. * YES, HILLARY’S DAUGHTER CHELSEA IS MARRIED TO GEORGE SOROS’ NEPHEW. * YES, ABC NEWS EXECUTIVE PRODUCER IAN CAMERON IS MARRIED TO SUSAN RICE, OBAMA’S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. * YES, CBS PRESIDENT DAVID RHODES IS THE BROTHER OF BEN RHODES, OBAMA’S DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS. * YES, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT CLAIRE SHIPMAN IS MARRIED TO JAY CARNEY, FORMER OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY. * YES, ABC NEWS AND UNIVISION REPORTER MATTHEW JAFFE IS MARRIED TO KATIE HOGAN, OBAMA’S FORMER DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY. * YES, ABC PRESIDENT BEN SHERWOOD IS THE BROTHER OF ELIZABETH SHERWOOD, OBAMA’S FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER. * YES, CNN VP VIRGINIA MOSELEY IS MARRIED TO TOM NIDES, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON’S DEPUTY SECRETARY. THIS IS WHAT YOU CALL A “STACKED DECK”. IF YOU HAD A HUNCH THE NEWS MEDIA WAS SOMEWHAT RIGGED AND YOU COULDN’T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT, THIS MIGHT HELP YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE.
Now you know why no one is investigated. They all have their hands in the cookie jar! You might remember James Comey who investigated the Clinton email scandal and the Clinton Foundation, and made the final decision to not recommend prosecution by the DOJ. It turns out that the Clinton Foundation was audited by the law firm DLA Piper. One of the executives there was in charge of the Clinton Foundation audit. Who was it? Peter Comey, James Comey’s brother. Peter Comey held an executive position with the Washington law firm that did the audit of the Clinton foundation in 2015. Peter Comey was officially DLA Piper “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas,” in 2015 when the Clinton Foundation scandals first broke and Hillary was preparing her Presidential campaign. Not only was DLA Piper, the firm where Comey’s brother worked involved in the audit of the Clinton Foundation, but according to the foundation’s donor records, DLA Piper has given between $50 – 100k to the Foundation. It gets even cozier. DLA Piper executive Douglas Emhoff is taking an extended leave of absence from the firm. Who is Douglas Emhoff? He is the husband of KAMALA HARRIS! Just a coincidence? Amazing if it is. You can’t make this stuff up! Another example of the DC swamp.”
fox files 
Written
on 17.February.2021.