theatlantic |strange thing
has happened on the path to marijuana legalization. Users across all
ages and experience levels are noticing that a drug they once turned to
for fun and relaxation now triggers existential dread and paranoia. “The
density of the nugs is crazy, they’re so sticky,” a friend from college
texted me recently. “I solo’d a joint from the dispensary recently and
was tweaking just walking around.” (Translation for the non-pot-savvy:
This strain of marijuana is not for amateurs.)
In 2022, the federal government reported
that, in samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration, average
levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC—the psychoactive compound in
weed that makes you feel high—had more than tripled compared with 25
years earlier, from 5 to 16 percent. That may understate how strong weed
has gotten. Walk into any dispensary in the country, legal or not, and
you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single product advertising such a low
THC level. Most strains claim to be at least 20 to 30 percent THC by
weight; concentrated weed products designed for vaping can be labeled as
up to 90 percent.
For
the average weed smoker who wants to take a few hits without getting
absolutely blitzed, this is frustrating. For some, it can be dangerous.
In the past few years, reports have swelled of people, especially teens,
experiencing short- and long-term “marijuana-induced psychosis,” with
consequences including hospitalizations for chronic vomiting and auditory hallucinations of talking birds.
Multiple studies have drawn a link between heavy use of high-potency
marijuana, in particular, and the development of psychological
disorders, including schizophrenia, although a causal connection hasn’t been proved.
“It’s
entirely possible that this new kind of cannabis—very strong, used in
these very intensive patterns—could do permanent brain damage to
teenagers because that’s when the brain is developing a lot,” Keith
Humphreys, a Stanford psychiatry professor and a former drug-policy
adviser to the Obama administration, told me. Humphreys stressed that
the share of people who have isolated psychotic episodes on weed will be
“much larger” than the number of people who end up permanently altered.
But even a temporary bout of psychosis is pretty bad.
One
of the basic premises of the legalization movement is that marijuana,
if not harmless, is pretty close to it—arguably much less dangerous than
alcohol. But much of the weed being sold today is not the same stuff
that people were getting locked up for selling in the 1990s and 2000s.
You don’t have to be a War on Drugs apologist to be worried about the
consequences of unleashing so much super-high-potency weed into the
world.
The
high that most adult weed smokers remember from their teenage years is
most likely one produced by “mids,” as in, middle-tier weed. In the
pre-legalization era, unless you had a connection with access to
top-shelf strains such as Purple Haze and Sour Diesel, you probably had
to settle for mids (or, one step down, “reggie,” as in regular weed)
most of the time. Today, mids are hard to come by.
The
simplest explanation for this is that the casual smokers who pine for
the mids and reggies of their youth aren’t the industry’s top customers.
Serious stoners are. According to research by Jonathan P. Caulkins, a
public-policy professor at Carnegie Mellon, people who report smoking
more than 25 times a month make up about a third of marijuana users but
account for about two-thirds of all marijuana consumption. Such regular
users tend to develop a high tolerance, and their tastes drive the
industry’s cultivation decisions.
The
industry is not shy about this fact. In May, I attended the National
Cannabis Investment Summit in Washington D.C., where investors used the
terms high-quality and potent almost interchangeably.
They told me that high THC percentages do well with heavy users—the
dedicated wake-and-bakers and the joint-before-bed crowd. “Thirty
percent THC is the new 20 percent,” Ryan Cohen, a Michigan-based
cultivator, told me. “Our target buyer is the guy who just worked 40
hours a week and wants to get high as fuck on a budget.”
Smaller
producers might conceivably carve out a niche catering to those of us
who prefer a milder high. But because of the way the legal weed market
has developed, they’re struggling just to exist. As states have been
left alone to determine what their legal weed markets will look like,
limited licensing has emerged as the favored apparatus. That approach
has led to legal weed markets becoming dominated by large, well-financed
“multistate operators,” in industry jargon.
Across the country, MSOs are buying up licenses, acquiring smaller brands, and lobbying politicians to stick prohibitions
on home-growing into their legalization bills. The result is an
illusion of endless choice and a difficult climate for the little guy.
Minnesota’s 15 medical dispensaries
are owned by two MSOs. All 23 of Virginia’s are owned by three
different MSOs. Some states have tried to lower barriers to entry, but
the big chains still tend to overpower the market. (Notable exceptions
are California and Colorado, which have a longer history with legal
marijuana licensing, and where the markets are less dominated by
mega-chains.) Despite the profusion of stores in some states and the
apparent variety of strains on the shelf, most people who walk into a
dispensary will choose from a limited number of suppliers that maximize
for THC percentage.
airplanesandrockets | By far the most potent source of energy is gravity. Using it as power future
aircraft will attain the speed of light.
Nuclear-powered aircraft are yet to be built,
but there are research projects already under way that will make the super-planes
obsolete before they are test-flown. For in the United States and Canada research
centers, scientists, designers and engineers are perfecting a way to control gravity
- a force infinitely more powerful than the mighty atom. The result of their labors
will be anti-gravity engines working without fuel - weightless airliners and space
ships able to travel at 170,000 miles per second.
If this seems too fantastic to be true, here is something to consider - the gravity
research has been supported by Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Co., Convair, Bell Aircraft,
Lear Inc., Sperry Gyroscope and several other American aircraft manufacturers who
would not spend milli0ns of dollars on science fiction. Lawrence D. Bell, the famous
builder of the rocket research planes, says, "We're already working with nuclear
fuels and equipment to cancel out gravity." And William Lear, the autopilot wizard,
is already figuring out "gravity control" for the weightless craft to come.
Gravitation - the mutual attraction of all matter, be it grains of sand or planets
- has been the most mysterious phenomenon of nature. Isaac Newton and other great
physicists discovered and described the gravitational law from which there has been
no escape. "What goes up must come down," they said. The bigger the body the stronger
the gravity attraction it has for other objects ... the larger the distance between
the objects, the lesser the gravity pull. Defining those rigid rules was as far
as science could go, but what caused gravity nobody knew, until Albert Einstein
published his Theory of Relativity.
In formulating universal laws that would explain everything from molecules to
stars, Einstein discovered a strong similarity between gravitation and magnetism.
Magnets attract magnetic metals, of course, but they also attract and bend beams
of electronic rays. For instance, in your television picture tube or electronic
microscope, magnetic fields sway the electrons from their straight path. It was
the common belief that gravitation of bodies attracted material objects only - then
came Einstein's dramatic proof to the contrary.
The G-plane licks "heat barrier" problem of high speed by creating
its own gravity field. Gravity generator attracts surrounding air to form a thick
boundary layer which travels with craft and dissipates heat. Electronic rockets
provide forward and reverse thrust. Crew and passenger cabins are also within ship's
own gravity field, thus making fast acceleration and deceleration safe for occupants.
Pre-Einstein physicists were convinced that light traveled along absolutely straight
lines. But on May 29, 1919, during a full eclipse of the sun, Einstein proved that
the light rays of distant stars were attracted and bent by the sun's gravitation.
With the sun eclipsed, it was possible to observe the stars and measure the exact
"bend" of their days as they passed close to the sun on their way to earth.
This discovery gave modem scientists a new hope. We already knew how to make
magnets by coiling a wire around an iron core. Electric current running through
the coiled wire created a magnetic field and it could be switched on and off at
will. Perhaps we could do the same with the gravitation.
Einstein's famous formula E = mc2 - the secret of nuclear energy -
opened the door to further research in gravitation. Prying into the atom's inner
structure, nuclear scientists traced the gravity attraction to the atom's core -
the nucleus. First they separated electrons by bombarding the atom with powerful
electromagnetic "guns." Then, with even more powerful electromagnetic bombardment,
the scientists were able to blast the nucleus. The "split" nucleus yielded a variety
of heretofore unknown particles.
In the course of such experiments,
Dr. Stanley Deser and
Dr. Richard Arnowitt
of Princeton Institute of Advanced Study found the gravity culprit - tiny particles
responsible for gravitation. Without those G-(gravity) particles, an atom of, say,
iron still behaved as any other iron atom except for one thing - it was weightless.
With the secret of gravitation exposed, the scientists now concentrate their
efforts on harnessing the G-particles and their gravity pull. They are devising
ways of controlling the gravity force just as the vast energy of a nuclear explosion
has been put to work in a docile nuclear reactor for motive power and peaceful use.
And once we have the control of those G-particles, the rest will be a matter of
engineering.
According to the gravity research engineers, the G-engine will replace all other
motors. Aircraft, automobiles, submarines, stationary powerplants - all will use
the anti-gravity engines that will require little or no fuel and will be a mechanic's
dream. A G-engine will have only one moving part - a rotor or a flywheel. One half
of the rotor will be subjected to a de-gravitating apparatus, while the other will
still be under the earth's gravity pull. With the G-particles neutralized, one half
of the rotor will no longer be attracted by the earth's gravitation and will therefore
go up as the other half is being pulled down, thus creating a powerful rotary movement.
Another, simpler idea comes from the Gravity. Research Foundation of New Boston,
N. H. Instead of de-gravitating one half of the rotor, we would merely shield half
of it with a gravity "absorber." The other half would still be pulled down and rotation
would result (see sketch).
The anti-gravity engine rotor is partially shielded by the gravity
absorber. The gravity force acting only on the exposed half of the rotor which creates
a powerful rotary motion. This particular device is suitable for powering ground
vehicles.
For an explanation of how the gravity "absorber" would work, lets turn to gravity's
twin brother - magnetism. If you own an ordinary watch, you must be forever careful
not to get it magnetized. Even holding a telephone receiver can magnetize the delicate
balance wheel and throw the watch out of time. Therefore, an anti-magnetic watch
is the thing to have. Inner works of such a watch are shielded by a soft iron casing
which absorb the magnetic lines of force. Even in the strongest magnetic field,
the shielded balance wheel is completely unaffected by the outside magnetic pull.
In a similar manner, a gravity "absorber" would prevent the earth's gravity from
acting upon the shielded portion of our G-engine.
Applied to engines, a gravity absorber would be a boon, but its true value would
be in aircraft construction where the weight control engineers get ulcers trying
to save an ounce here, a pound there. Of course, an indiscriminate shielding of
an aircraft and the resulting total weightlessness is not what we would want. A
de-gravitated aircraft would still be subject to the centrifugal force of our rotating
globe. Freed from the gravity pull, a totally weightless aircraft would shoot off
into space like sparks flying off a faster spinning, abrasive grinding wheel. So,
the weight, or gravity, would have to be reduced gradually for take-off and climb.
For level flight and for hovering, the weight would be maintained at some low level
while landing would be accomplished by slowly restoring the craft's full weight.
The gravity-defying engineers claim that the problem of this lift control is
a cinch. The shield would have an arrangement similar in principle to the venetian
blind - open for no lift and closed for decreased weight and increased lift.
No longer dependent on wings or rotors, the G-craft would most likely be an ideal
aerodynamic shape - a sort of slimmed-down version of the old-fashioned dirigible
balloon. Since weight has a lot to do in limiting the size of today's aircraft,
a perfect weight control of the G-craft would remove that barrier and would make
possible airliners as big as the great ocean liner the S.S. United States.
A G-airliner would be a real speed demon. The coast-to-coast flight time would
be cut to minutes even with the orthodox rocket propulsion. You may wonder about
the air friction "heat barrier" of high-speed aircraft, but the gravity experts
have an answer for that, too. Canadian scientists headed by Wilbur B. Smith - the
director of the "Project
Magnet" - visualize an apparatus producing a gravitational field in the G-ship.
This gravity field would attract the surrounding air to form a thick "boundary layer"
which would move with the ship. Thus, air friction would take place at a distance
from the ship's structure and the friction heat would be dissipated before it could
warm up the ship's skin (large diagram).
When electric current from battery is switched on the coil will
create a magnetic field which repels the aluminum disk and makes it shoot upward.
Future sips may be built of diamagnetic metals with specially rearranged atomic
structure.
The G-ships own gravity field would perform another useful function. William
P. Lear, the chairman of Lear, Inc., makers of autopilots and other electronic controls,
points out, "All matter within the ship would be influenced by the ship's gravitation
only. This way, no matter how fast you accelerated or changed course, your body
would not feel it any more than it now feels the tremendous speed and acceleration
of the earth." In other words, no more pilot blackouts or any such acceleration
headaches. The G-ship could take off like a cannon shell, come to a stop with equal
abruptness and the passengers wouldn't even need seat belts.
This ability to accelerate rapidly would be ideal for a space vehicle. Eugene
M. Gluhareff, President of Gluhareff Helicopter and Airplane Corporation of Manhattan
Beach, California, has already designed several space ships capable of travel at
almost the speed of light, or about 600,000,000 miles per hour. At that speed. the
round trip to Venus would take just over 30 minutes. Of course, ordinary chemical
rockets would be inadequate for such speeds, but Gluhareff already figures on using
"atomic rockets."
At least one such "atomic rocket" design has been worked out by Dr. Ernest Stuhlinger,
a physicist of the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Stuhlinger's
rocket would use ions - atoms with a positive electric charge. To produce those
ions, Dr. Stuhlinger takes cesium, a rare metal that liquefies at 71° F. Blown
across a platinum coil heated to 1000° F., liquid cesium is ionized, the ions
are accelerated by a 10,000 volt electromagnetic "gun" and shot out of a tail pipe
at a velocity of 186,324 miles per second.
The power for Dr. Stuhlinger's "ion rocket" would be supplied by an atomic reactor
or by solar energy. The weight of the reactor and its size would no longer be a
design problem, since the entire apparatus could be de-gravitated - made weightless.
Revolutionary as Dr. Stuhlinger's idea may seem, it is already superseded by the
Canadian physicists of the "Project Magnet." The Canadians propose to do away with
the bulk of the nuclear reactor and use the existing magnetic fields of the earth
and other planets for propulsion.
As we well know, two like magnetic poles repel each other, just as under certain
conditions, an electromagnet repel the so-called diamagnetic metal, such as aluminum.
Take a flat, aluminum ring, slip it over a strong electromagnet and switch on the
current. Repelled by the magnetic field, the disk will fly off with quite a speed.
(see sketch). Of course, the earth's magnetism is too weak to repel a huge G-ship
made of a diamagnetic metal. However, the recent studies of the atomic nucleus and
the discovery of G-particles make it possible to rearrange the atomic structure
so as to greatly increase the diamagnetic properties of metals. Thus, a G-ship with
a magnetic control could be repelled by the earth's magnetic field and it would
travel along the magnetic lines of force like the aluminum ring shooting off the
electromagnet.
The entire universe is covered by magnetic fields of stars and planets. Those
fields intertwine in a complex pattern, but they are always there. By proper selection
of those fields, we could navigate our G-ship in space as well as within the earth's
magnetic field. And the use of the magnetic repulsion would eliminate the radiation
danger of the nuclear reactor and the problem of atomic fuel.
How long will it take to build the weightless craft and G-engines, the gravity
experts don't know. George S. Trimble, Vice-President in charge of the G-project
at Martin Aircraft Corporation thinks the job "could be done in about the time it
took to build the first atom bomb." And another anti-gravity pioneer, Dudley Clarke,
President of Clarke Electronics Laboratories of Palm Springs, California, believes
it will be a matter of a few yeas to manufacture anti-gravity "power packages."
But no matter how many years we have to wait, the amazing anti-gravity research
is a reality. And the best guarantee of its early success is the backing of the
U.S. aircraft industry - the engineers and technicians who have always given us
tomorrow's craft today.
Eyes on Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico who has just announced a Covid Inquiry that will investigate the vaccine, excess deaths, the EU Pfizer deal and Big Pharma’s ability to control the Government.
igor-chudov | 1. The media taks about the strong motivations of the guy regarding the Ukraine war. Who is interested in Fico being killed, when viewed from the Ukraine war angle?
Clearly, not the Russians. Fico and Orban (the PM's of Slovakia and Hungary) are the only ones in the EU that do not want this war to continue. The rest of the EU is either captured by their corrupt leaders and/or are vested in delivering arms (such as the Czech Republic that has major orders now for ammunition), they want this war to continue, mostly pushed by the US and NATO. Especially the US considers this proxy war "good for business" and both the UK and US foreign ministers are doing a sales roadshow, literally stating how good it is for business (since every military contractor earns money, while soldiers of the Ukraine and Russia, not of other countries, are dying). A despicable immoral attitude, but factual. And people have become totally insensitive to this message, when they should be outraged about politicians openly talking about war like business, ignoring the devastation.
So whatever the motivators in intimidating Slovakia regarding the war, it does not serve Russian interests.
But what is the media full with already? "Pro-Russian militant group with ties to the assassin". Totally illogical. Just like the first media message that emerged about the blowing up of the North-stream pipeline, as if Russia were behind it, blowing up its own money maker. But it does fit with the media and political narrative of the collective West, the military industrial complex and some other interests I will cover in the next bulletpoints. So whatever news will now appear that wants to implicate Russia, is obviously a lie. Like so many other media news on politics, including the reasons for this war, how it's progressing and the effects on the economy. But the power of the media will have the masses believe the official narrative nonetheless, just like that "safe and effective" jab they forced on people.
2. What other controversial topics did Fico deal with that may cause him to be assassinated?
Well, the list is pretty long. He does not like the way NATO is going, he does not want to finance the Ukraine war, he does not like the Covid plandemic enforcement by the WHO and wanted to investigate it, he is opposing the LGBTQ+ narrative, so he pretty much seems to be standing up against the current rages, most of which are fuelled by interest groups in the US. I would say that he is stepping on all of the Deep State toes at the same time with this. BigPharma, the Military Industrial Complex, all globalists' plans on the future of humanity, the whole DEI concept, he is opposing all of these. So there are plenty of interests that would want him gone.
In that sense, I do not think that this assassination is isolated to the WHO or BigPharma interests solely, though they are vested of course.
3. Perhaps the most important aspect is overlooked, as we are frantically looking for the interests behind this: we are beyond conspiracies at this point. A sole gunman or a group that laid out a plan to remove a problematic leader, it boils down to the same: the sign of the times. This is our world now and it is no longer an isolated effect. Whether it's the attempts on Bolsenaro, Abe, Fico or the 4 presidents that died under suspicious circumstances at the start of the plandemic and who were the only ones opposing the WHO orders, we see that radicalization is now mainstream. And it no longer requires conspiracies, as the brainwashing has been so effective that people assume they can afford to do such horrible deeds. The general population's big part has lost its mind, as it has lost its points of reference, since there is no such thing anymore as "normal". Just look at the Eurovision Song Contest with the satanic, queer, LGBTQ+ minority appearances en-masse: what used to be considered as fringe and extreme, is now mainstream, "pop". The foundations of our society are cast down, this IS a tectonic shift and you have to be vast asleep to not be aware of it.
Almost everything that happens as an extremity, is part of a broader narrative, whether it's an isolated event or not. Just like the extremity of an assassination, the extremeties of our politicians are portraying the same narratives. I don't even think that world leaders at this point need to get their talking points from the WEF or WHO to be fully aligned or meet behind closed doors to know their answers to crucial questions, just look at the collective pro-war insanity that almost all of the EU leaders agree on. They have a certain view of how the world should go and they are rolling it out, no matter the cost. Whether it's because they have been brainwashed as "young global leaders" under the WEF as Schwab proudly stated many times, or whether the world has taken a direction of decadence in which such authoritarian leaders are being elected as the masses have an anxiety and dissatisfaction that they want to have channeled via these leaders, it does not make a difference when it comes to the narrative that results from this unified approach. And this happens on both the left and the right, authoritarianism is now universal.
Therefore, I do not believe that this one man needed to be trained for this, that there is a single group or motivator behind him, that it can be pinpointed to parties, leaders, countries or vested groups for that matter. Because I think that ALL of these are behind this, through their collective actions.
We as the people have become divided through many means, mainly (social) media. And we are now part of the problem. I do not fully agree with Mattias Desmet's analysis on the Mass Formation hypothesis (because he does not agree with finding the head kingpins that lead us to the conflict, as he believes that the problems start with us and our leaders are merely a reflection of our needs for such leaders), but I do agree with his assessment that in a time of general dissatisfaction, "free floating anxiety" as he calls it, lack of common goals, people become radicalized, even masses, not just individuals.
And this is exactly the problem. People are so divided now, that at any moment someone can perform a radical deed such as an assassination and consider it "normal", because of lack of reference point. People watch too much media as it is, especially social media and the extremities they witness daily are becoming the norm, while these have nothing to do with real life. Therefore their actions reflect this twisted world view, which in turn DOES change the world around us, making it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm afraid this person is a symptom and this will continue, even accelerate. The two people in the US lighting themselves on fire for a cause that is not theirs (the young soldier in front of an embassy shouting about Palestine, as well as the other person in front of the Trump courtcase having left messages about some financial collapse to come) are excellent examples of the insanity that people have been captured in and increasingly are, as the censorship is ramping up, to hold us back from communicating freely about facts, which would pull us back to the ground and see things more clearly, avoiding panic and fanaticism. In a sense, I see such irrational extremism emerge in the alternative media as well, where rational thinkers tend to see a conspiracy behind everything, as we too are in our echo-chambers. Most of the time these assumptions are right, but it does radicalize and make solutions on the long term impossible, where common ground needs to be found at some point with the equally radicalized oppposing side.
Like Neil Oliver said a few days ago in a podcast: the question is no longer whether our leaders have nefarious plans, but whether they will push us into destruction by coincidence, such is their incompetence and ignorance about the damage they are doing to the world. At this point, clearly they have lost control. And people are imitating their leaders, just like this lone gunman did.
The learning I think is that we need to look a this calmly and avoid a widening of the gap within our societies. People should talk more about the contested topics, instead of going full ad hominem on "the other side". Yes, there are nefarious forces at work behind deeds like this. No, the aim is not to go to war with them, because we cannot win such a war. We need to ignore them and start talking to each other more. That will take the wind out of their sails.
realclearpolitics | Winston Marshall, the former banjo player from the band "Mumford & Sons", now host of The Winston Marshall Show podcast,
spoke in opposition to an Oxford Union motion that "This House Believes
Populism is a Threat to Democracy." Speaking for the motion was former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"Populism is not a threat to democracy," Marshall said. "Populism is democracy."
"Populism is not a threat to democracy, but I'll tell you what is. It is
elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It's police
shutting down dissenters," he said.
WINSTON MARSHALL: Words have a tendency to change meaning when I was a boy, "woman" meant "someone who didn't have a cock."
Populism has become a word used synonymously with "racists." We've heard
"ethno-nationalist," with "bigot," with "hillbilly," "redneck," with
"deplorables."
Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people.
This is a recent change. Not long ago, Barack Obama, while he was still president, at the North American Leaders Summit in June 2016,
took umbrage with the notion that Trump be called a "populist." How
could Trump be called a populist? He doesn't care about working people.
If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything Obama argued,
Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who'd spent five decades
fighting for working people. But Trump.
Something curious happens. If you watch Obama's speeches after that
point, more and more recently, he uses the word "populist"
interchangeably with "strong man," with "authoritarian." The word
changes meaning, it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur.
To me, populism is not a dirty word. Since the 2008 crash and
specifically the trillion-dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the
populist age, and for good reason. The elites have failed.
Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made
tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I
would be on that side of the House. If the motion was that political
violence was a threat to democracy, I'd be on that side of the house.
January 6th has been mentioned -- a dark day for America, indeed. And
I'm sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June
2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon was under siege,
and under insurrection by radical progressives, those too were dark days
for America.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: You are not. There is no equivalence there.
WINSTON MARSHALL: So you don't agree, that is fine. You don't agree. That's fine.
REP. NANCY PELOSI: It is not like what happened on January 6, which was
an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.
iWINSTON MARSHALL: So you don't agree, but you will condemn those days.
My point, though is that all political movements are susceptible to
violence, and indeed insurrection. And if we were arguing that fascism
was a threat to democracy, I'd be on that side of the House.
Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against fascism. I've got quite a lot to get through.
Populism as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an
elite, populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy, and
why else have universal suffrage, if not to keep elites in check?
Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently,
Javier Milei taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina's
bureaucratic monster, you'd be mistaken for thinking this was a
right-wing populist age, but that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street.
That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbyn's "for the many, not the few," that
would be ignoring Bernie against the billionaires, RFK Jr. against Big
Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment.
Now all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of
ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment.
I'm actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman
Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed
to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be
anti-establishment today, particularly in America, the globalist left
have become the establishment. I suppose for Miss Pelosi to have taken
this side of the motion, she'd be arguing herself out of a job.
But it's here in Britain, where right and left populists united for the
supreme act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have showed the number one
reason people voted for Brexit was sovereignty, for more democracy.
What was the response of the Brussels elite? They did everything in
their power to undermine the Democratic will of the British people and
the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we've heard, David
Cameron called the voters "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists." The
liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic
vote. Keir Starmer campaigned for a second referendum. Elites would have
had us voting and voting and voting until we voted their way. Indeed,
that's what happened in Ireland and in Denmark.
Let's look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger
populist revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. In the
Farmer revolts from the Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece, to Sri
Lanka, farmers are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG
policy that's floated down to us from those all-knowing, infallible
elites of Davos. The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when
petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts,
not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The Gilets Jaunes
France, ULEZ in London, working people protesting policy that hurt them.
And how are they treated? They're called conspiracy theorists. They're
called far-right, by the mayor as well.
Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real
threat to democracy is from the elites. Now don't get me wrong, we need
elites. If President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run
the countries. When the president has severe dementia, it is not just
America that crumbles, the whole world burns.
But let's examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1
billion a year lobbying Brussels, U.S. corporations spend over $2
billion a year lobbying in DC, and two-thirds of Congress receive
funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent $11 million in
2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of
Americans think the is rigged against them for the rich and the
powerful.
And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big
government were in cahoots. And I think any students here of early
20th-century Italian history will know what I'm talking about.
What about Big Tech? Throughout the pandemic, Biden's team, the FBI, and
the Department of Homeland Security colluded with Big Tech in censoring
dissenting voices. Not kooky conspiracy theorists, people like Dr. Jay
Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist, people like Harvard scientist
Martin Kulldorf, people spreading true information, not misinformation,
true information at odds with the government narrative.
Need I remind you, democracy without free speech is not democracy.
This was a direct breach by the way of the First Amendment. Before
COVID, Intelligence services colluded with Big Tech to have Trump
suspended off Twitter. Yes, the same platform which hosted the Taliban
and Ayatollah "Death To Israel" Khomeini. They thought the president
crossed the line when he tweeted on Jan 6 quote, "Remain peaceful. No
violence! Respect the law and our great men and women in blue." That's a
quote.
You may be thinking now that Trump is a populist. You are right. He
didn't accept the 2020 elections and he should have. So should Hillary
in 2016. So should Brussels, and so should Westminster in 2016. And so
too should Congresswoman Pelosi, instead of saying the 2016 election was
quote, "hijacked."
PELOSI: That doesn't mean we don't accept the results, though!
WINSTON MARSHALL: What about the mainstream media? Let me read you some
mainstream media headlines. The New Yorker the day before the 2016
election, "The Case Against Democracy." The Washington Post, the day
after the election, "The Problem With Our Government Is Democracy." The
LA Times, June 2017, "The British Election Is A Reminder Of The Perils
Of Too Much Democracy." Vox, June 2017, "Two eminent political
scientists say the problem with democracy is voters." New York Times,
June 2017, "The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is The
Participants."
Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don't just disdain
populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their
energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn't even have a chance
in 2024. He shouldn't, he shouldn't have a chance. You've had power for
four years. From the fabricated Steele dossier, to trying to take him
off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the
anti-Democrat party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as
the pro-Monarchist party.
Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I'll
tell you what is. It is elites ordering social media to censor political
opponents. It's police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monarchists
in this country or gender-critical voices here, or last week in
Brussels, the National Conservative Movement.
I'll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It's Brussels, DC,
Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big Pharma, corporate
collusion and the Davos cronies. The threat to democracy comes from
those who write off ordinary people as "deplorable." The threat to
democracy comes from those who smear working people as "racists." The
threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as
"populists."
And I'll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end
at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to
start listening to, respecting, and God forbid, working for ordinary
people. Thank you.
realclearpolitics | Batya Ungar-Sargon, the deputy editor of Newsweek and author of the new book, Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America's Working Men and Women, speaks with RCP Washington bureau chief Carl Cannon on Thursday's edition of the RealClearPolitics radio show.
"People don't talk about it like it is an outrage," she said about the
transformation of the Democratic Party into something other than a party
for the working class. "It is such a fait accompli at this point
that we forget that it is outrageous for a party that used to represent
labor, the little guy against big corporations and the rich, completely
abandoned that constituency to cater to an over-credentialed college
elite on one hand, and the dependent poor on the other. And it is double
outrageous because that party still masquerades as the party of the
little guy, even though it is not the case anymore."
"It started with the handshake agreement between both parties that we're
going to become an economy that embraced free trade," she said. "That
was Bill Clinton's contribution to this, signing NAFTA into law and
trade agreements that resulted in the offshoring of 5 million
manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico."
"And then President Obama showed up and said repeatedly those jobs are
not coming back, and pioneered this idea that everyone was going to go
to college and become part of the knowledge industry, and that was going
to be the pathway to the American dream. And then it became the only
pathway to the American dream!"
"Joe Biden played his part by effectively opening up the border,
decriminalizing illegal border crossing, and welcoming in 11 million new
migrants to compete with working-class Americans for the jobs that
remained here," she said.
"It's true that immigration raises the GDP in the aggregate. The problem
is nobody lives in the aggregate. GDP is not equally distributed across
the nation. We know the top 20% now has 50% of the GDP at its disposal.
The very people who love to rail against the 1% are the people who have
made the largest gains in the last 50 years, and they are the consumers
of low-wage migrant labor, which is why, of course, they want more of
it. It is an upward transfer of wealth from the working class to the
elites who consume that labor."
"If you bring in 11 million people and you know they are going to be
employed as cleaning people, landscapers, and in construction, you have
effectively stolen wages from the Americans who were employed in those
jobs. It is just obvious supply and demand."
Carl Cannon asked: "Do they really hate the working class, or are they
just in their politically correct bubble and don't see what they're
doing?"
"They can not stand the idea that they will lose, even if they lose in a
very obviously democratic way," Ungar-Sargon said. "They are very
comfortable when they can sit there on cable news making millions of
dollars to sneer at the working class. They're comfortable when the
working class can't clap back."
"This was really Obama's revolution, the idea that the 'smart set'
should run things. We should have an oligarchy of the credentialed. But
when the working class has their audacity to vote in their own interest
and clap back by putting somebody like Donald Trump in power, that
sneering contempt turns to hate."
Tucker: "I have no clue at all how Nancy Pelosi is just so rich or how her stock picks are, like, way better than Warren Buffett's. How does that happen?"
sputnik | Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) raised eyebrows
recently with the revelation the former US House Speaker placed a big
bet on a little-known San Francisco tech startup. A disclosure made last
week showed the powerful Democratic Party politician purchased $5
million in stock of the privately-held company Databricks, a cloud data
company. The stake is one of dozens Pelosi holds in US tech companies,
some obscure and some well-known such as Tesla and Microsoft. The
lawmaker has reportedly invested more than $120 million in stock
purchases since entering federal government in 1987. Her net worth is
thought to be over $100 million, although her current salary as a US
congresswoman is just over $220,000. Pelosi has never been convicted of
criminal wrongdoing in her investment activity, although her portfolio’s
impressive return of 65% last year might suggest the legislator is more
informed than average traders. US stock indices grew an average of 26%
in 2023.
“From an ethical perspective, I believe it is extremely harmful for
politicians to trade individual stocks,” said Chris Josephs, the founder
of a stock trading service, to US media. “There are numerous jobs out
there that don’t allow employees [to conduct] trading, yet our most
powerful Americans can.” Pelosi opposed attempts to ban lawmakers from
buying and selling stocks in 2021 under the claim such activity could be
viewed as insider trading. “We are a free-market economy,” she said at
the time. “They [Congress members] should be able to participate in
that.” Former director of the US Office of Government Ethics Walter
Shaub slammed the argument as “ridiculous.” “She might as well have said
‘let them eat cake,’” said Shaub, referring to famous comments by the
French queen Marie Antoinette. “Sure, it’s a free-market economy. But
your average schmuck doesn’t get confidential briefings from government
experts chock full of nonpublic information directly related to the
price of stocks.”
Late last week it was announced that an activist involved in
pro-Palestine protests at the California lawmaker’s home had been
arrested on felony vandalism charges. Cynthia Papermaster, 77, is
reportedly being held on a $50,000 bond. “We want to see a permanent and
immediate ceasefire,” said Papermaster in an interview recently. “We
can’t control what the Israelis do, but we can control what our own
government does, or at least that’s the aspiration.” Pelosi called for
the anti-war activists to be investigated by the FBI in an appearance on
US television after the incident earlier this year. Pelosi first
claimed the demonstrators were being paid by China, then later clarified
she believed Russia was behind the act of civil disobedience. The
former House speaker joins the ranks of opponents of US civil rights
with her comments; detractors frequently claimed racial justice protests
in the 1960s and 70s were fomented by Russia to sow discord in the
United States.
sonar21 | Americans are by-and-large decent, genial folks. But when it comes to
history, most have the memory of an Alzheimer’s patient. Sam Cooke was
speaking for most Americans when he crooned, “Don’t know much about
history …”. So I will make this simple — America’s hatred of Russia has
its roots in the U.S. Government’s post-WW II embrace of Nazis. Tim
Weiner writes about this in his essential book, Legacy of Ashes.
In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Berlin, U.S. Army
intelligence recruited and relied on German General Reinhard Gehlen:
“During World War II, General Gehlen had tried to spy on the Soviets
from the eastern front as a leader of the Abwehr, Hitler’s military
intelligence service. He was an imperious and cagey man who swore he had
a network of “good Germans” to spy behind Russian lines for the United
States.
“From the beginning,” Gehlen said, “I was motivated by the following
convictions: A showdown between East and West is unavoidable. Every
German is under the obligation of contributing his share, so that
Germany is in a position to fulfill the missions incumbent on her for
the common defense of Western Christian Civilization.” The United States
needed “the best German men as co-workers…if Western Culture is to be
safeguarded.” The intelligence network he offered to the Americans was a
group of “outstanding German nationals who are good Germans but also
ideologically on the side of the Western democracies.”. . .
“But in July 1949, under relentless pressure from the army, the CIA
took over the Gehlen group. Housed in a former Nazi headquarters outside
Munich, Gehlen welcomed dozens of prominent war criminals into his
circle. As Helms and Sichel feared, the East German and Soviet
intelligence services penetrated the Gehlen group at the highest levels.
The worst of the moles surfaced long after the Gehlen group had
transformed itself into the national intelligence service of West
Germany. Gehlen’s longtime chief of counterintelligence had been working
for Moscow all along.”
In the wake of this debacle, the CIA failed to recruit and run any
significant sources in the Soviet Government. The CIA had very few
officers who spoke Russian and swallowed whole hog the belief that the
Soviets were intent on conquering the world and that it was up to the
United States — relying heavily on the CIA — to stop the Soviets. That
became the cornerstone of American foreign policy and explains the CIA’s
obsession with regime change. No one in the intelligence hierarchy was
encouraged or permitted to raise the alternative view — i.e., the
Soviets, fearful of a Western invasion, took firm control of the
European nations on its western border and installed governments that
would served the Soviet interest. The CIA started its life as a new
bureaucracy in Washington firmly committed to destroying the Soviet
Union.
One of its first projects was recruiting and funding an insurgency
with Ukrainians who had sided with the Nazis. While that effort was
crushed by the Soviets, it served to further convince Stalin and others
in the Soviet hierarchy that the West was in bed with Nazi survivors and
could not be trusted.
The failure of the CIA to predict critical world events was an early
distinguishing feature of the CIA from the start. The Soviets detonated
their first nuke on August 29, 1949. Three weeks later a U.S. Air Force
crew flying out of Alaska detected traces of radiation beyond normal
levels. Weiner recounts what happened next:
“On September 20, the CIA confidently declared that the Soviet Union
would not produce an atomic weapon for at least another four years.”
The CIA’s leaders knack for getting it wrong continued with the
failure to heed warnings that China was going to intervene on behalf of
North Korea in 1950. Here is Weiner’s account:
“The president left for Wake Island on October 11, 1950. The CIA
assured him that it saw “no convincing indications of an actual Chinese
Communist intention to resort to full-scale intervention in
Korea…barring a Soviet decision for global war.” The agency reached that
judgment despite two alarms from its three-man Tokyo station. First the
station chief, George Aurell, reported that a Chinese Nationalist
officer in Manchuria was warning that Mao had amassed 300,000 troops
near the Korean border. Headquarters paid little heed. Then Bill Duggan,
later chief of station in Taiwan, insisted that the Chicoms soon would
cross into North Korea. General MacArthur responded by threatening to
have Duggan arrested. The warnings never reached Wake Island.
At headquarters, the agency kept advising Truman that China would not
enter the war on any significant scale. On October 18, as MacArthur’s
troops surged north toward the Yalu River and the Chinese border, the
CIA reported that “the Soviet Korean venture has ended in failure.” On
October 20, the CIA said that Chinese forces detected at the Yalu were
there to protect hydroelectric power plants. On October 28, it told the
White H ouse that those Chinese troops were scattered volunteers. On
October 30, after American troops had been attacked, taking heavy
casualties, the CIA reaffirmed that a major Chinese intervention was
unlikely. A few days later, Chinese-speaking CIA officers interrogated
several prisoners taken during the encounter and determined that they
were Mao’s soldiers. Yet CIA headquarters asserted one last time that
China would not invade in force. Two days later 300,000 Chinese troops
struck with an attack so brutal that it nearly pushed the Americans into
the sea.
Are you beginning to see a pattern here? While it is true there were
some solid intelligence officers in the ranks of the CIA, any attempt to
raise a warning that flew against conventional wisdom or defied what
the leaders wanted to hear was ignored or punished. The failures of the
CIA leadership to correctly predict the Soviets producing a nuclear bomb
and the Chinese invasion of Korea are not isolated incidents. When it
comes to big, critical issues — e.g., the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Tet
offensive, the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Shah
of Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam’s 1990 invasion
of Kuwait, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 9-11 plot, weapons of
“Mass Destruction in Iraq” and Russia’s ability to survive western
sanctions and spin up its defense industry to outpace the U.S. and NATO
countries combined — the CIA missed them all.
twitter | So why is Israel doing this? Is there anything in it for Israel but virtually global hate? Because it doesn't seems like there is.
A couple days ago I said I was going to provide an explanation why Israel has chosen to conduct itself like it has. Here it is. It's very provocative, and it's going to mess with your mind quite a bit.
I will also remind you that I am Jewish and I have the perfect right to my own opinion on Jewish affairs. - Before I go on, and as I know many people are going to read this, make sure that you follow me. What I have to say doesn't end here. Stay connected. - Throughout these months, I am sure you have asked yourselves why Israel is acting as if its design is to maximize the amount of hate it stands to receive from a global community of shocked and terrified people.
There have been so many occasions for this, but I'll bet last week, when IDF soldiers executed 3 Palestinian men in a hospital, it stood out to you as outrageously brazen.
That's because the IDF took special care to get it televised. They didn't confiscate cameras or servers, and didn't hack or destroyed files. It's almost as if they were acting for the cameras.
A world wide audiences got the message, and everyone was talking about Fauda, the TV series meant to portray the humane face of Israel's apartheid.
How peculiar, right? And wait, what about all those videos by soldiers of themselves joyfully blowing up stuff? And what about the naked men filmed in their humiliated hundreds?
Let me reminds you, for contrast, that in two years of Russia's was in Ukraine, not once have you seen Russian soldiers celebrating the destruction of civilian infrastructure. And you've never seen naked and humiliated Ukrainian soldiers loaded on trucks, or sitting on the ground, eyes covered.
There may have been things like that happening. We don't know. But if scenes like these actually occurred, the Russian military took special care to conceal them from us. The IDF did not. Why? - Keep this question in mind, and let's make it ever more interesting. Let's ask: what is the justification, the reason, or cause for the existence of organizations such as AIPAC and ADL? I mean, seriously. Are American Jews in so much danger, and face so much persecution in the US, that perpetual billion-dollar operations are required to guard them from harm? Are Jews disproportionally jailed in the US? Designated victims of violent crime? Harassed by the authorities? Cannot be out on the street? Is American society that laser-focused on hating Jews? Aren't there other American communities who are more exposed to danger, harassment, poverty and crime? I mean, seriously?
And say an organization like AIPAC does have some nostalgic reason for being, what is doing pushing for wars? More specifically and currently: why are Jewish organizations in the US, alongside Israel, doing all they possibly can to place Jews at the epicenter of a possible world war?
Why are organizations that are supposed to keep Jews safe making Jewish affairs the formal declared reason for a clash and a war the could destroy civilization as we know it? Isn't it the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing? Say like a military that constantly broadcasts its own astonishing cruelty, and destroys its own image? - We are getting closer. But one more hurdle needs to be removed for us to see the answer. Stay sharp. - Two very obvious opposites in seeing the world: paranoia and basic trust. This is true for people, but it is just as valid for political societies. Some societies are more paranoid and some are more relaxed, but no society on earth is more paranoid than the super-mega-ultra Jewish part of the Jewish people, or wider society. There is no other group on earth the world is so contently on its feet defending.
No other society, too, decided to use trauma as the center of its identity. I know many of you, especially Americans, have come to see this as just Jewish. But it is not so (and maybe you need a Mizrahi Jew to tell you this). It is one strand of Jewish perception that derives its sense of identity from pogroms and the Holocaust. Israel and IPAC act like this is natural and the only way to be Jewish. That's nonsense.
Pogroms and the Holocaust were not all the experience of all the Jews. Many Jewish communities knew long percids of safety and prosperity. Not all Jews were victims all the time, and Jews are definitely not the only victims humanity has even known. Personally I always found it more than a little offsetting to hear American Jews refer to their misery and victimhood constantly, in a country where millions of natives, organized in hundreds and thousands of flourishing communities, were wiped of the face of the planet. A country and culture that operated industrial scale slavery of black people for hundreds and hundreds of years, and fought not to recognize them as equal humans for centuries more.
I would never do that.
A country that has so much terrible, dehumanizing poverty and homelessness, so much pain. How come the most successful, heavily represented in all things power and money minority in this society is also its greatest victim?
I know this is the norm and this is the description of reality I should conform to, but no. It doesn't make sense. - You can choose trauma and paranoia or trust and basic optimism as your guide in life. But the biggest Jewish organization in our lifetime chose one clear path: that of trauma, suspicion and what can be called Armageddonism. Always alert. Always someone out there to get you. Everybody hates us.
And as we're almost at the end of it, I will say the final part a little more directly. In choosing trauma and paranoia, both Israel and AIPAC found and unexpected source of false power.
Because existential fear can bring a society of people together, but it's not going to be a society many people would want to live in.
So you keep people afraid all the time, and you make sure they are feeling, or actually being, hated all the time. This is how you maintain your power over them.
And as Jewish trauma has become such a huge international political thing (again: I wouldn't do that), the incentive was always there to keep this mentality alive. To organize around it. To make sure it remains the formal doctrine of Jewish institutions. Such as AIPAC and Israel. - So Israel and American Jewish organizations took it upon themselves to keep Jews afraid and isolated. This strategy of intentional paranoia has been working for a while, but it gradually eroded. It especially eroded in the US, as younger Jews became increasingly aware that the stories they've been told are lies, and that no one really cares about their ethnicity.
That erosion in the power of instilled exceptionalism, isolationism and existential fear poses a very serious problem for Jewish organizations built around paranoia. The Palestinians and Arabs were a wonderful solutions for this problem for a while: by keeping Palestinians oppressed and thus hostile, the old myth of antisemitism as a huge international force could be kept on life support.
But this, too, began to fade, as younger American Jews started getting more familiar with Palestinian perspectives. - And then October 7th hit. And the right wing, nationalistic, paranoid section of the Jewish political spectrum, realized it could be translated into political gold.
This could be used to revive the old sentiments. The ghetto, the pogroms, the trains to the east. All of it. This is why Nazis were invoked so early on. Jews were once again the persecuted minority AIPAC and Netanyahu always told you they were. How wonderful for them.
But October 7th was not enough, because people would immediately put it in the context of the occupation. They would ask the eternal human question: why did this happen? What happened before?
If you're Netanyahu or AIPAC, putting Jews in the context of normal human behavior is the last thing you want. What you want is boiling rage and fear to be extensively covered in all the media and all the briefings.
Need I say I would not do that, either? - And this is where my final point arrives. It doesn't seem like Israel is trying to be hated globally. It is actually what it's doing. It is intentionally airing its cruelty and barbarity so that it will remain closed up to the world, thus guaranteeing the continued rule of the paranoia camp.
They are doing it on purpose, for cynical political gains, out of a twisted reading of history and of human nature. Palestinians are just crash test dummies in this scenario. They count for nothing. Their deaths are used to get people angry and Israel hated, so it becomes even more paranoid. - For the same reason, AIPAC is putting the Jewish issue at the epicenter of the lead up to WW3. They cannot not know that Jews will be called as responsible, or at least a major factor in it.
Can you imagine millions of dead Americans, destroyed cities, populations stressed into panic and despair - all because of a war Jewish organizations pushed for? How does anyone who purports to represent Jews and care for them not recoil from this scenario? Do these people have any idea at all of what they're doing?
And I am sorry for sounding this impolite an not nice: we are on the eve of a potential world war. As a Jew I am terrified.
The last thing I want is to be blames for a world war. But the Jewish paranoia camp seems to relish the opportunity. Maybe they are sure this is how the messiah comes. I have my reservations. - Finally, Jewish organization centered around trauma found a very welcoming and happy to help friend in American imperialists. It is so wonderful when you can market middle east invasions as battling antisemitism. Who could argue with you? In the name of defending Israel, the US can do whatever it wants. It has the perfect moral cover. It will support an actual genocide. It will go completely insane.
What they - both AIPAC and US establishments - are not including in their calculations is that a big war in the middle east can have very devastating results for both the US and Israel. In their quest for creating a Jewish psyche and a world beneficial to their paranoid vision (which America shares as a colonial power), that don't take into account that reality is a whole different business from propaganda. - But this is why they do it, and televise and broadcast it. So that we are hated, isolated, fearful and controlled by Bibi and AIPAC forever. There's nothing that reassures those people as hate for Israel. - Don't fight people who thrive on hate with hate. Fight them with clarity and resolve.
WOW 🚨 On The Record Testimony & Evidence That Barack Obama Created An Illegal Psyop Against The American People To Interfere In Future Elections
“2 days ago, my colleagues and I published the 1st batch of internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, which show US… pic.twitter.com/1d2WpWcNe8
twitter |Oh wait until the truth gets out on ALL the things started by Obama.
That is of course if they don’t double down using new resources to mass censor and play psyops games on American citizens again.
Obama was pissed when Trump won because Obama had almost completed everything going on right now. Trump stopped it. Well delayed it that is. Trump cut funding to the WHO and stopped the Obama DOD Biodefense Council from fully being formed. It is now formed under Biden using your tax dollars.
Did the Obama and Biden Administration lay down an impressive enforcement foundation for the W.H.O., Climate agendas, global health agendas and World Economic Forum ideologies using the NDAA and DOD?
Lets break it down into a few parts:
FY23 NDAA:
Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) W.H.O. & Pandemic Preparedness
Did our representatives use the NDAA to establish foundations for a massive power grab under the W.H.O. U.N. Under the guise of pandemic preparedness, climate crisis & global health?
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew1315/p/fiscal-year-2023-national-defense?r=2z8r4w&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
DOD CONTRACTS WITH BIG TECH AND PRIVATE CORPORATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE “DISINFORMATION” AI SOFTWARE
BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR THINGS LIKE FCC, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REGULATIONS, DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT FOR GREEN AGENDAS DOD contracts with Big Tech and private corporations for “disinformation” control Alethia, LCK strategies, Accrete - Biden Administration Executive orders and FCC changes
Have they established a massive tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex?
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew1315/p/biolabs-in-wuhan-china-odessa-ukraine?r=2z8r4w&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
OBAMA, BIDEN, FAUCI CONNECTIONS WITH BIOLABS IN WUHAN, CHINA, ODESSA, UKRAINE, AND NIH LAB IN HAMILTON MONTANA IN REGARDS TO CORONAVIRUS AND OTHER ZOONOTIC THREATS
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew131
WaPo | This
is the trajectory we are on now. Is descent into dictatorship
inevitable? No. Nothing in history is inevitable. Unforeseen events
change trajectories. Readers of this essay will no doubt list all the
ways in which it is arguably too pessimistic and doesn’t take sufficient
account of this or that alternative possibility. Maybe, despite
everything, Trump won’t win. Maybe the coin flip will come up heads and
we’ll all be safe. And maybe even if he does win, he won’t do any of the
things he says he’s going to do. You may be comforted by this if you
choose.
What
is certain, however, is that the odds of the United States falling into
dictatorship have grown considerably because so many of the obstacles
to it have been cleared and only a few are left. If eight years ago it
seemed literally inconceivable that a man like Trump could be elected,
that obstacle was cleared in 2016. If it then seemed unimaginable that
an American president would try to remain in office after losing an
election, that obstacle was cleared in 2020. And if no one could believe
that Trump, having tried and failed to invalidate the election and stop
the counting of electoral college votes, would nevertheless reemerge as
the unchallenged leader of the Republican Party and its nominee again
in 2024, well, we are about to see that obstacle cleared as well. In
just a few years, we have gone from being relatively secure in our
democracy to being a few short steps, and a matter of months, away from
the possibility of dictatorship.
Are
we going to do anything about it? To shift metaphors, if we thought
there was a 50 percent chance of an asteroid crashing into North America
a year from now, would we be content to hope that it wouldn’t? Or would
we be taking every conceivable measure to try to stop it, including
many things that might not work but that, given the magnitude of the
crisis, must be tried anyway?
Yes,
I know that most people don’t think an asteroid is heading toward us
and that’s part of the problem. But just as big a problem has been those
who do see the risk but for a variety of reasons have not thought it
necessary to make any sacrifices to prevent it. At each point along the
way, our political leaders, and we as voters, have let opportunities to
stop Trump pass on the assumption that he would eventually meet some
obstacle he could not overcome. Republicans could have stopped Trump
from winning the nomination in 2016, but they didn’t.
The voters could have elected Hillary Clinton, but they didn’t.
Republican senators could have voted to convict Trump in either of his
impeachment trials, which might have made his run for president much
more difficult, but they didn’t.
Throughout
these years, an understandable if fatal psychology has been at work. At
each stage, stopping Trump would have required extraordinary action by
certain people, whether politicians or voters or donors, actions that
did not align with their immediate interests or even merely their
preferences. It would have been extraordinary for all the Republicans
running against Trump in 2016 to decide to give up their hopes for the
presidency and unite around one of them. Instead, they behaved normally,
spending their time and money attacking each other, assuming that Trump
was not their most serious challenge, or that someone else would bring
him down, and thereby opened a clear path for Trump’s nomination. And
they have, with just a few exceptions, done the same this election
cycle. It would have been extraordinary had Mitch McConnell
and many other Republican senators voted to convict a president of
their own party. Instead, they assumed that after Jan. 6, 2021, Trump
was finished and it was therefore safe not to convict him and
thus avoid becoming pariahs among the vast throng of Trump supporters.
In each instance, people believed they could go on pursuing their
personal interests and ambitions as usual in the confidence that
somewhere down the line, someone or something else, or simply fate,
would stop him. Why should they be the ones to sacrifice their careers?
Given the choice between a high-risk gamble and hoping for the best,
people generally hope for the best. Given the choice between doing the
dirty work yourself and letting others do it, people generally prefer
the latter.
A
paralyzing psychology of appeasement has also been at work. At each
stage, the price of stopping Trump has risen higher and higher. In 2016,
the price was forgoing a shot at the White House. Once Trump was
elected, the price of opposition, or even the absence of obsequious
loyalty, became the end of one’s political career, as Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Paul D. Ryan and many others discovered. By 2020, the price had risen again. As Mitt Romney recounts in McKay Coppins’s recent biography,
Republican members of Congress contemplating voting for Trump’s
impeachment and conviction feared for their physical safety and that of
their families. There is no reason that fear should be any less today.
But wait until Trump returns to power and the price of opposing him
becomes persecution, the loss of property and possibly the loss of
freedom. Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was
merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost
might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family?
We
are closer to that point today than we have ever been, yet we continue
to drift toward dictatorship, still hoping for some intervention that
will allow us to escape the consequences of our collective cowardice,
our complacent, willful ignorance and, above all, our lack of any deep
commitment to liberal democracy. As the man said, we are going out not
with a bang but a whimper.
zerohedge |Media Matters has opted for new tactics in its campaign to drive advertisers from X.
Media Matters has manipulated the algorithms governing the user
experience on X to bypass safeguards and create images of X’s largest
advertisers’ paid posts adjacent to racist, incendiary content, leaving
the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they
actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.
Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X’s internal investigations have revealed.
First, Media Matters accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days, bypassing X’s ad filter for new users. Media
Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting
entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce
extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers.
The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a
single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it
could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.
But this activity still was not enough to create the pairings of advertisements and content that Media Matters aimed to produce.
Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed, generating
between 13 and 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the
average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally
received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts.
Media
Matters omitted mentioning any of this in a report published on
November 16, 2023 that displayed instances Media Matters “found” on X of
advertisers’ paid posts featured next to Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist
content. Nor did Media Matters otherwise provide any context regarding
the forced, inauthentic nature and extraordinary rarity of these
pairings.
However, relying on the specious narrative propagated by
Media Matters, the advertisers targeted took these pairings to be
anything but rare and inorganic, with all but one of the companies
featured in the Media Matters piece withdrawing all ads from X,
including Apple, Comcast, NBCUniversal, and IBM—some of X’s largest
advertisers. Indeed, in pulling all advertising from X in response to
this intentionally deceptive report, IBM called the pairings an
“entirely unacceptable situation.” Only Oracle did not withdraw its ads.
The
truth bore no resemblance to Media Matters’ narrative. In fact, IBM’s,
Comcast’s, and Oracle’s paid posts appeared alongside the fringe content
cited by Media Matters for only one viewer (out of more than 500
million) on all of X: Media Matters. Not a single authentic
user of the X platform saw IBM ’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to
that content, which Media Matters achieved only through its manipulation
of X’s algorithms as described above. And in Apple’s case, only two out
of more than 500 million active users saw its ad appear alongside the
fringe content cited in the article—at least one of which was Media
Matters.
Media Matters could have produced a fair,
accurate account of users’ interactions with advertisements on X via
basic reporting: following real users, documenting the actual, organic
production of content and advertisement pairings. Had it done so,
however, it would not have produced the outcome Media Matters so
desperately desired, which was to tarnish X’s reputation by associating
it with racist content. So instead, Media Matters chose to maliciously
misrepresent the X experience with the intention of harming X and its
business.
Further, X CEO Linda Yaccarino
- who has reportedly been under pressure all day by various ad
companies to resign - defended the company in a statement on Monday.
"If you know me, you know I'm committed to truth and fairness," she posted.
"Here's
the truth. Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM's, Comcast's, or
Oracle's ads next to the content in Media Matters' article.
Only 2 users saw Apple's ad next to the content, at least one of which
was Media Matters. Data wins over manipulation or allegations. Don't be manipulated. Stand with X."
The
attacks on X make clear that the real concern of Democratic Party
elites is their lack of control over the public conversation.
From
1996 to 2016, Democrats felt they controlled the elite policy and
political conversation through the news media. After that appeared to
fall apart in 2016, and as Democrats, including Podesta, blamed social
media for Clinton’s loss, they stepped up their effort to take control
over Twitter and Facebook, which they did, demanding and winning the
censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop, and deplatforming Trump.
The
strategy of Democratic Party leaders, including Clinton, Podesta, and
Obama, has been, since 2016, to label Trump-supporting Republicans as
racists, Nazis, and antisemites. The attacks on Elon Musk’s X must be
taken in this context.
The real agenda behind the
Media Matters attack on X is the same as the one behind the Democrats’
attack on Trump and the Republicans. Democrats want to control the
conversation.
Without censorship, voters can
see that the border is a disaster, the Ukraine war was a tragic failure,
and that Democrats have been censoring them.
...
...we must have greater control over the content we receive through social media platforms.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
