As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever
Pelosi: We Need to Protect the Capitol from ‘All the President’s Men out There’
By Glenn Greenwald | March 5, 2021
Twice in the last six weeks, warnings were issued about imminent, grave threats to public safety posed by the same type of right-wing extremists who rioted at the Capitol on January 6. And both times, these warnings ushered in severe security measures only to prove utterly baseless.
First we had the hysteria over the violence we were told was likely to occur at numerous state capitols on Inauguration Day. “Law enforcement and state officials are on high alert for potentially violent protests in the lead-up to Inauguration Day, with some state capitols boarded up and others temporarily closed ahead of Wednesday’s ceremony,” announced CNN. In an even scarier formulation, NPR intoned that “the FBI is warning of protests and potential violence in all 50 state capitals ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.”
The resulting clampdowns were as extreme as the dire warnings. Washington, D.C. was militarized more than at any point since the 9/11 attack. The military was highly visible on the streets. And, described The Washington Post, “state capitols nationwide locked down, with windows boarded up, National Guard troops deployed and states of emergency preemptively declared as authorities braced for potential violence Sunday mimicking the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of pro-Trump rioters.” All of this, said the paper, “reflected the anxious state of the country ahead of planned demonstrations.”
But none of that happened — not even close. The Washington Post acknowledged three weeks later:
Despite warnings of violent plots around Inauguration Day, only a smattering of right-wing protesters appeared at the nation’s statehouses. In Tallahassee, just five armed men wearing the garb of the boogaloo movement — a loose collection of anti-government groups that say the country is heading for civil war — showed up. Police and National Guard personnel mostly ignored them.
All over the country it was the same story. “But at the moment that Biden was taking the oath of office in Washington, the total number of protesters on the Capitol grounds in Topeka stood at five — two men supporting Trump and two men and a boy ridin’ with Biden,” reported The Wichita Eagle (“With Kansas Capitol in lockdown mode, Inauguration Day protest fizzles). “The protests fizzled out after not many people showed up,” reported the local Florida affiliate in Tallahassee. “The large security efforts dwarfed the protests that materialized by Wednesday evening,” said CNN, as “state capitols and other cities remained largely calm.”
Indeed, the only politically-motivated violence on Inauguration Day was carried out by Antifa and anarchist groups in Portland and Seattle, which caused some minor property damage as part of anti-Biden protests while they “scuffled with police.” CNN, which spent a full week excitedly hyping the likely violence coming to state capitols by right-wing Trump supporters, was forced to acknowledge in its article about their non-existence that “one exception was Portland, where left-wing protesters damaged the Democratic Party of Oregon building during one of several planned demonstrations.”
Completely undeterred by that debacle, Democrats and their media spokespeople returned with a new set of frightening warnings for this week. The date of March 4 has taken on a virtually religious significance for the Q-Anon movement, announced NBC News’ Ben Collins, who was heard on NPR on Thursday speaking through actual, literal journalistic tears as he recounted all the times he called Facebook to plead with them to remove dangerous right-wing extremists on their platform (tears commence at roughly 7:00 minutes in). Valiantly holding back full-on sobbing, Collins explained that he proved to be so right but it pains and sorrows him to admit this. With his self-proclaimed oracle status fully in place, he prophesized that March 4 had taken on special dangers because Q-Anon followers concluded that this is when Trump would be inaugurated.
This is how apocalyptic cult leaders always function. When the end of the world did not materialize on January 6, Collins insisted that January 20 was the day of the violent reckoning. When nothing happened on that day, he moved the Doomsday Date to March 4. The flock cannot remain in a state of confusion for too long about why the world has not ended as promised by the prophet, so a new date must quickly be provided with an explanation for why this is serious business this time.
This March 4 paranoia was not confined to NBC’s resident millennial hall monitor and censorship advocate. On March 3, The New York Times warned that “the Capitol Police force is preparing for another assault on the Capitol building on Thursday after obtaining intelligence of a potential plot by a militia group.” All this, said the Paper of Record, because “intelligence analysts had spent weeks tracking online chatter by some QAnon adherents who have latched on to March 4 — the original inauguration date set in the Constitution — as the day Donald J. Trump would be restored to the presidency and renew his crusade against America’s enemies.”
These dire warnings also, quite predictably, generated serious reactions. “House leaders on Wednesday abruptly moved a vote on policing legislation from Thursday to Wednesday night, so lawmakers could leave town,” said the Times. We learned that there would be further militarization of the Capitol and troop deployment in Washington indefinitely due to so-called “chatter.” NPR announced: “The House of Representatives has canceled its Thursday session after the U.S. Capitol Police said it is aware of a threat by an identified militia group to breach the Capitol complex that day.”
Do you know what happened on March 4 when it came to violence from right-wing extremists? The same thing that happened on January 20: absolutely nothing. There were no attempted attacks on the Capitol, state capitols, or any other government institution. There was violent crime registered that day in Washington D.C. but none of it was political violence by those whom media outlets warned posed such a grave danger that Congress has to be closed and militarization of Washington extended indefinitely.
Perhaps the most significant blow to the maximalist insurrection/coup narrative took place inside the Senate on Thursday. Ever since January 6, those who were not referring to the riot as a “coup attempt” — as though the hundreds of protesters intended to overthrow the most powerful and militarized government in history — were required to refer to it instead as an “armed insurrection.”
This formulation was crucial not only for maximizing fear levels about the Democrats’ adversaries but also, as I’ve documented previously, because declaring an “armed insurrection” empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry. Over and over, leading Democrats and their media allies repeated this phrase like some hypnotic mantra:
But this was completely false. As I detailed several weeks ago, so many of the most harrowing and widespread media claims about the January 6 riot proved to be total fabrications. A pro-Trump mob did not bash Office Brian Sicknick’s skull in with a fire extinguisher. No protester brought zip-ties with them as some premeditated plot to kidnap members of Congress (two rioters found them on a table inside). There’s no evidence anyone intended to assassinate Mike Pence, Mitt Romney or anyone else.
Yet the maximalist narrative of an attempted coup or armed insurrection is so crucial to Democrats — regardless of whether it is true — that pointing out these facts deeply infuriates them. A television clip of mine from last week went viral among furious liberals calling me a fascism supporter even though it did nothing but point out the indisputable facts that other than Brian Sicknick, whose cause of death remains unknown, the only people who died at the Capitol riot were Trump supporters, and that there are no known cases of the rioters deliberately killing anyone.
(Two FBI operatives have since anonymously leaked that it is looking at a “suspect” who may have engaged with Sicknick in a way that ultimately contributed to his death. But nothing still is known; Sicknick’s mother claims he died of a stroke while his brother says it was from pepper spray; and all of this is worlds away from the endlessly repeated media claim that a bloodthirsty pro-Trump mob savagely bashed his head in with a fire extinguisher.)
What we know for sure is that no Trump supporter fired any weapon inside the Capitol and that the FBI seized a grand total of zero firearms from those it arrested that day — a rather odd state of affairs for an “armed insurrection,” to put that mildly. In questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Thursday’s hearing, a senior FBI official, Jill Sanborn, acknowledged this key fact:
(The “one lady” who died referred to by this FBI official was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Trump supporter who was killed when she was shot point blank in the neck inside the Capitol on January 6 by an armed Capitol Police Officer).
The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot without denying that there is any danger at all.
Those who denounced the excesses of McCarthyism were not insisting that there were no Communists in government; those denouncing the excesses of the Clinton administration’s attempts to seize more surveillance power after the Oklahoma City court bombing were not denying that some anti-government militias may do violence again; those who objected to the protracted and unhinged assault on civil liberties by the Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations after 9/11 were not arguing that there were no Muslim extremists intent on committing violence.
The argument then, and the argument now, is that the threat was being deliberately inflated and exaggerated, and fears stoked and exploited, both for political gain and to justify the placement of more and more powers in the hands of the state in the name of stopping these threats. That is the core formula of authoritarianism — to place the population in a state of such acute fear that it acquiesces to any assertion of power which security state agencies and politicians demand and which they insist are necessary to keep everyone safe.
There is, relatedly, a massive political benefit from convincing the population that the opponents and critics of those in power do not merely hold a different ideology but are coup plotters, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists. That is the same political benefit that accrued from trying to persuade the population that adversaries of the Democratic Party were treasonous Kremlin agents. The more you can demonize your opponents as something monstrous, the more political power you can acquire.
And as Democrats and liberals now gear up to demand a new War on Terror, this one domestic in nature, it should be no surprise that the rhetorical leaders of their effort now are the same lowlife neocon and Rovian slanderers — Bill Kristol, David Frum, Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, Rick Wilson — who demonized everyone who questioned them as part of the first War on Terror as traitors and terrorist-lovers and subversives. It is not a coincidence that neocons are leading the way now as liberals’ favorite propagandists: they are the most skilled and experienced in weaponizing and exaggerating terrorism threats for political gain and authoritarian power.
Ultimately, if this “armed insurrection” and threat of domestic terrorism are so grave, why do media figures and politicians in both parties — from Adam Schiff to Liz Cheney — keep lying about it and peddling fictions? Politicians and media figures do that only when they know that the threat, in reality, is not nearly as menacing as they need it to be to fulfill their objectives of political gain and coercive power.
Jab Kids ‘As Fast As We Can,’ Says SAGE Professor On BBC News
By debess | Principia Scientific | March 1, 2021
Professor John Edmunds, a UK scientists acting as a shill for Bill Gates appears on BBC news to promote the disgusting practice of jabbing children with a ‘vaccine’ that is more likely to harm them than help them.
This is the currently reality of the eugenicists’ culling agenda – kill the old and the young (they don’t produce, only consume) If we can’t get them all, sterilize the rest.
From HugoTalks https://hugotalks.com/
Via tangentopolis (world orders review) with many excellent links!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GoIJbmt6aA5U/
Also See:
Vaccines “Unlikely to COMPLETELY STERILIZE a Population” – Sir John Bell
https://www.bitchute.com/video/94NyKw1b6B2Q/
HOW TO REFUSE MANDATED VACCINATIONS – GETTING READY TO SAY NO!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VagDtXsF3mQb/
The Eugenics Vaxtrap – Dr Sherri Tenpenny
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9tI9SxZ4pLht/
More at www.bitchute.com
Mass Rejection of Covid Jabs by US Military Families
By Stephen Lendman | February 28, 2021
Leading promoter of hazardous experimental covid jabbing NYT expressed angst over mass rejection of getting them by US military families.
According to The Vaccine Reaction on February 21, a Blue Star Families (BSF) survey found that 53% of US military families reject being used as Pharma guinea pigs for unapproved Pfizer and Moderna experimental mRNA jabs.
According to BSF head Kathy Roth-Douquet, “military families are expressing a lot of concern about” jabbing with what they don’t trust.
One military spouse likely spoke for many others, saying she, her family, and other service members don’t want to be “guinea pigs” for what hasn’t be adequately tested or proved safe.
According to Air Force General Paul Friedrichs, the US war department cannot or will not mandate what hasn’t received FDA approval, just emergency use authorization even though no real emergency exists.
At this time — what could change ahead — to be jabbed or not jabbed for covid is a personal decision by US military personnel at all levels.
Vaccines take years to develop. Pfizer and Moderna entries into the covid mass-jabbing sweepstakes are high-risk, experimental, gene altering mRNA technology.
They’re not vaccines. They were rushed to market with inadequate testing.
Since mass-jabbing began in December, large numbers of adverse events and deaths were reported, especially among elderly nursing home residents in the US and Europe.
If what’s experimental and unapproved is mandated, it would be an unprecedented experiment with human health virtually certain to turn out badly because of what’s already known.
According to one nursing home health worker, residents and some staff are “dying like flies” after jabbed.
No credible evidence suggests that mRNA technology is safe or effective.
The same holds for Johnson and Johnson’s covid vaccine about to be granted emergency use authorization.
Joseph Mercola explained that rushed Pfizer and Moderna trials were “rigged” to produce results that aren’t credible.
Their mRNA technology wasn’t evaluated on the ability to prevent infection and viral transmission.
Last November, associate editor of the BMJ publication for health professionals Peter Doshi said Pfizer’s claim of 95% effectiveness is false.
Its risk reduction to flu-renamed covid is less than 1%, rendering it virtually useless for protection.
The same holds for Modern’s mRNA technology and most likely for J & J’s vaccine as well.
On Friday, the NYT understated the number of US military families who decline to be jabbed for covid, claiming it’s about “one-third” of US forces, mostly younger personnel.
Young healthy people need no protection for flu, now called covid.
Over 99% of young people who contract covid recover normally with no special medical intervention for help.
The Times expressed concern about millions of US military personnel who refuse to be jabbed with what may cause irreversible harm to their health, saying:
It’s “a warning to civilian health officials about the potential hole in the broad-scale immunity that medical professionals say is needed for Americans to reclaim their collective lives.”
Unexplained by the Times and other establishment media is that mass-jabbing provides no protection, no immunity, no ability to prevent covid from spreading from one person to others.
It only risks great harm to health that in some cases is lethal.
What major media should headline and repeat time and again, they suppress.
Instead of wanting public health protected and preserved, the corporate fourth estate is pushing what risks unprecedented harm to millions of people in the US and elsewhere by promoting hazardous mass-jabbing.
The Times is the lead print culprit, providing press agent services for US dark forces and Pharma profiteers — at the expense of public health.
The broadsheet falsely claimed that concerns shared by countless millions of people in the US and elsewhere is from “misinformation that has run rampant on Facebook and other social media.”
What the self-styled newspaper of record calls “misinformation” is refuted by indisputable hard evidence of mass-jabbing hazards.
Protecting and preserving what’s too precious to lose requires saying “no” to what won’t protect and risks great harm if use as directed.
‘Slow’ Atlantic Ocean may cause climate chaos–Or There Again Maybe Not!
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | February 27, 2021
The Atlantic current system which maintains mild weather in Europe is at its weakest in over a millennium, most likely because of climate change, scientists have found.
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is part of a system of ocean currents which acts as a conveyor belt to move water around the Earth, redistributing heat and acting as a key link in maintaining the world’s climate.
It began a serious slowdown around 1850 and is now at its lowest point in 1,000 years, according to a new study in the journal Nature Geoscience.
It is not certain what the impact of further weakening will be on weather patterns, but scientists believe it could bring more heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rise on the east coast of the US.
The impact of changing water temperatures is also potentially devastating for some marine life, with the slowdown already linked to lower cod numbers off Maine.
Some evidence suggests there could be a ‘tipping point’ sometime after 2100 when the system collapses, which could cause intense winter storms in Europe and a significant cooling effect across the northern hemisphere that would not be offset by global
Co-author Dr David Thornalley, from University College London said: “This study shows the increasing evidence in support of the modern Atlantic Ocean undergoing unprecedented changes in comparison to the last millennium, and in some cases longer.”
Scientists from Ireland, Britain and Germany looked at 11 different sources of data, including tree rings, ocean sediment and corals.
The AMOC has only been directly measured since 2004, leaving scientists to rely on indirect measurements such as these to monitor historic change, which produce imprecise results.
Dr Laura Jackson, a Met Office scientist specialising in AMOC who was not involved in the study, said there were “still uncertainties associated with using these indirect observations.”
But the paper adds to previous research that found a weakening of the AMOC, with one study suggesting there has been a 15 per cent decrease since the mid-century. – Telegraph
In other words they only have data since 2004, and are relying highly unreliable proxies further back Translation – Junk Science!
Meanwhile, another finds exactly the opposite:
Cuomo and the Failure of Covid Absolutism
By James Bovard | AIER | February 24, 2021
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is falling from grace at epic speed. His administration is now the target of a Justice Department probe for policies that resulted in the death of one out of eight nursing home residents in the state. Regardless of whether the New York legislature impeaches Cuomo, the standard he championed poses a continuing peril.
From the start of the Covid pandemic, the media idolized Cuomo for his “safety through absolute power” mantra. Last March 20, Cuomo imposed a statewide lockdown on 20 million New Yorkers, closing schools and businesses. Cuomo labeled his decree a “pause” and declared: “If everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.” At that point, most counties in New York state had five or fewer people who have tested positive for coronavirus.
Cuomo’s “just one life” standard for lockdowns should have obliterated his credibility. Instead, Cuomo’s maxim was treated as a triumph of idealism and benevolence. Cuomo’s power grab was enabled by media allies that fanned hysteria. As AIER editorial director Jeffrey Tucker recently noted, the New York Times’ Donald G. McNeil Jr. “was the first reporter from a major media venue to stir up virus panic and advocate for extreme lockdown measures… The Times allowed its voice to be used to promote a primal and primitive disease panic, which they surely knew would create a cultural/political frenzy.” Presidential candidate Joe Biden hailed Cuomo last Spring for setting the “gold standard” for leadership on Covid.
After Cuomo swayed the New York legislature to give him “authorization of absolute power,” as the New Yorker declared, he issued scores of decrees, including one compelling nursing homes to admit Covid-infected patients and permitting Covid-infected staffers to keep working at those homes. A New York democratic legislator said that Cuomo was “inclined towards tyranny. But in a crisis that’s what people want.”
A New Yorker profile, entitled “Andrew Cuomo, King of New York,” explained that Cuomo and his aides saw the battle over Covid policy as “between people who believe government can be a force for good and those who think otherwise.” For many liberals and much of the nation’s media, placing people under house arrest, padlocking schools, bankrupting business, and causing two million people to lose their jobs vindicated government as “a force for good.”
MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace declared that Cuomo is “everything Trump isn’t: honest, direct, brave.” Entertainment Weekly hailed Cuomo as “the hero that America never realized it needed until he was on our television screens every night.” As National Review recently noted, local reporters failed to ask questions on his nursing home edict “for months, as the governor held his much-praised daily press briefings about the pandemic. There were literally hundreds of hours of Cuomo press conferences in the first half of 2020 where not a single question was asked about nursing homes.”
The docile media paved the way to Cuomo winning an Emmy award for his “masterful use of television” during the pandemic. The media’s valorization of Cuomo helped make his self-tribute book, American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic, a bestseller.
Cuomo has always known how to milk the media. When he was Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, he explained to the Washington Post in 1999 how he would fix HUD’s dismal image: “The PR is the most important thing I do … Eighty percent of the battle is communications.” (I christened Cuomo as “the Clinton administration’s most megalomaniacal cabinet secretary in a 2000 American Spectator piece titled, “Andy At It Again: How to Keep Reinventing HUD to Advance Yourself.”) Flash forward to last June, and Cuomo prematurely issued a poster celebrating his and New York state’s victory over Covid. The political art (sold for $14.50 plus shipping and handling) featured a steep mountain symbolizing the rise and fall of Covid cases. The poster was plastered with insipid phrases such as “The sun on the other side, “The power of ‘We,’” “Winds of Fear,” “Follow the Facts,” and “Love Community Support,” and included a jibe against Trump. Though poster sales failed to deter second and third waves of Covid outbreaks, the PR campaign further encouraged the media to focus on Cuomo’s words instead of his deeds.
During the pandemic, “legitimacy” came not from adhering to the U.S. and state Constitutions but from continually invoking “science and data,” as Cuomo did. . Cuomo’s entitlement to absolute power came from modeling concocted by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), a Washington State-based institution bankrolled by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel noted last week in an AIER analysis, IHME forecasts presumed a death rate 30 times higher than the rate that actually occurred. That horrendous miscalculation sufficed for one governor after another to nullify Americans’ freedom with lockdown orders. Absurd statistical extrapolations forecasting future harm made tyranny irrelevant.
Cuomo describes himself as a “great progressive,” perhaps thereby entitling himself to any power he presumes necessary “for the good of the people,” Bill of Rights be damned. November, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York state restrictions that limited religious gatherings to ten or fewer people while permitting far more leeway for businesses to operate, declaring that Cuomo’s rules were “far more restrictive than any Covid-related regulations that have previously come before the Court… and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus.” Cuomo’s allies in the liberal establishment reacted with horror to the limit on his sway. An American Civil Liberties Union official fretted to the New York Times that “the freedom to worship… does not include a license to harm others or endanger public health.” Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe and Cornell professor Michael Dorf babbled that the ruling signaled that the Supreme Court belonged in “the theocratic and misogynist country in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’”
Cuomo remained revered even though his repressive policies failed to prevent New York from having among the nation’s highest Covid death rates. But a Justice Department probe into his nursing home policies launched last August may be his undoing. New York state reported barely half of the total of more than 12,000 New York nursing home patients who died of Covid. Cuomo’s top aide, Melissa DeRosa, told Democratic legislative leaders that “basically, we froze” when the feds demanded information. “We were in a position where we weren’t sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice… was going to be used against us,” DeRosa said according to a leaked transcript.
But Cuomo’s culpability goes beyond hiding corpses. Early in the pandemic, he pushed to include a legislative provision written by the Greater New York Hospital Association to give a waiver of liability to nursing homes and hospitals whose patients died of Covid. A report last month by the New York Attorney General warned, “The immunity laws could be wrongly used to protect any individual or entity from liability, even if those decisions were not made in good faith or motivated by financial incentives.” As the Guardian noted, “Cuomo’s political machine received more than $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association (GNYHA), its executives and its lobbying firms.”
But Cuomo’s credibility should have been dethroned long before the latest disclosures. As early as last May, barely two months after the start of the state lockdown, a New York Post columnist groused: “So Gov. Andrew Cuomo killed Grandma and cratered New York’s economy. But he looked good doing it.” Cuomo’s cachet derived almost entirely from media scoring that until recently ignored almost all of the harms he inflicted.
Cuomo and other politicians have used Covid policy lodestars that were akin to crossing the Pacific Ocean with navigators who insisted the earth was flat. Melinda Gates admitted last December: “What did surprise us is we hadn’t really thought through the economic impacts.” The politicians who imposed shutdowns based on data from the Gates’ funded by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation apparently never bothered to estimate the collateral damage from their decrees. Similar myopia spurred crackdowns and restrictions in many states that helped cause the sharpest reduction in Americans’ life expectancy since World War Two.
Unfortunately, there is no indication that either politicians or the media have recognized the authoritarian dangers inherent in governors or presidents claiming a right to boundless power to save “just one life.”
A similar standard is helping justify keeping schools closed in many areas. Teachers’ unions have rallied around the motto: “If one teacher dies, isn’t that too many?” But like Cuomo’s shutdowns, that standard ignores the horrific collateral damage on American children. A Journal of the American Medical Association analysis concluded that shutting down the schools would reduce the current crop of students’ collective years of life by more than five million, based on “lower income, reduced educational attainment, and worse health outcomes.” It remains to be seen how much, if any, the role of the well-being of children plays in school policy in the coming months.
While it is unlikely that the media lapdogs who adore Cuomo and other prominent politicians will admit their follies, the exposure of hard facts may help blunt the next stampede to submission. The Justice Department investigation into nursing home policies that boosted Covid death tolls in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania could tarnish some of the nation’s most aggressive Covid lockdowners. Other investigations by the media or private groups could expose far more evidence of misconduct or of gross negligence that boosted Covid death tolls.
In a tour of television talk shows shortly after President Biden was inaugurated, Cuomo recited his latest catchphrase: “Incompetent government kills people.” This intended slapdown of Trump is recoiling badly on the New York governor. If Cuomo is impeached or forced to resign for his Covid fiascos, maybe he could score plenty of media appearances with a new slogan: “Absolute power with impunity kills.”
Corporate America is fueling race war to deflect attention from massive wealth inequality
By Robert Bridge | RT | February 25, 2021
Racial strife in the US today is not a ‘grassroots phenomenon’ born out of exasperated relations between blacks and whites. It is a manufactured crisis being foisted upon the public at a time when populist ideas are in the air.
Ask the average person on Main Street to describe the biggest news story of 2020 and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests will probably take a close second place just behind the Covid-19 pandemic. That answer, however, is more of a reflection of the US media’s unmatched power for shaping the public narrative than an honest assessment of the real problems confronting Americans. Indeed, far more worrisome than racial tensions, and a virus with a 99.75 percent survival rate, is the colossal transfer of wealth to the golden 0.01 percent.
Ever since Covid-19 made landfall in January of 2020, America’s 664 billionaires saw their collective worth explode to $4.2 trillion, a staggering 44 percent increase from just one year earlier. If ever there was a media story worth pursuing this was it. After all, that historic money grab was fueled by millions of hardworking Americans suddenly being ordered to shelter in place as their small businesses went up in proverbial flames. At the same time, monster companies like Amazon, WalMart and Louis Vuitton, ranked “essential” and apparently impervious to pandemic, happily filled the void.
Instead of providing a critical assessment of that corporate takeover, the media ran defense for the robber barons, indulging the CEOs as though they were Roman emperors returning home in triumph from military plunder abroad. US News & World Report, for example, apparently confusing the outbreak of a deadly disease with a sporting event, called guys like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates “the biggest winners of the coronavirus pandemic.” So much for critical journalism.
Incidentally, the reason it was deemed necessary for small business owners to lay down and play dead, the ‘experts’ crowed, was to“save grandma” from the ravages of Covid-19 (in the most consequential presidential election cycle in many decades, no less). Yet, strangely, nobody bothered to ask grandma her opinion on the matter, nor did such concerns prevent infected senior citizens from being dispatched to nursing homes, which quickly became the main incubator for coronavirus deaths in the nation. But I digress.
As cruel fate would have it, at the same time that the already insanely rich were counting their newfound bullion, George Floyd had the life crushed out of him under the knee of a white police officer. At this point, the media industrial complex could have navigated that tragedy into safe harbor, away from a proverbial shit storm, or straight into the rocks. Predictably, it chose the latter course, blaming Floyd’s death on ‘systemic racism,’ as opposed to other more probable explanations, like poorly trained and overworked police officers who are simply unprepared for the myriad challenges they face every day on the job. What followed was a prime example of the elite, with the complicity of the media, actively promoting civil strife to conceal the rapidly growing wealth divide.
US corporations – the very same entities that were doing gangbuster business amid the pandemic – began stuffing the war chests of various social justice groups, notably Black Lives Matter. The financier George Soros, who never met a social uprising he didn’t like, also opened his wallet to the tune of $220 million. The question must be asked: why would corporations sponsor BLM at the very same time the latter was destroying and looting Main Street, USA as part of their “mostly peaceful” protests? Wouldn’t those donations have been better spent rebuilding the urban centers and SMALL BUSINESSES across the nation that BLM ransacked? Perhaps, but that would have clashed with the media-forged narrative, predicated on the myth of ‘systemic racism,’ that is working to deflect attention away from an anti-establishment mood that has settled on the nation.
Another method being employed to foment racial tensions is known as ‘critical race theory’ (CRT), by far one of the most sinister ideas to emerge from the liberal asylum of academia in a long time. In a nutshell, CRT postulates the notion that all white people, even if they don’t know it, have an inborn sense of racial superiority, which manifests itself in racism, the oppression of minority groups and card-carrying membership in some white supremacist group (at this point, take a moment and ask yourself how many ‘white supremacists’ you know). Banned by Donald Trump last year after it was discovered that CRT was being taught to government employees, President Joe Biden made it one of his first acts as president to reinstate the radical progressive legislation.
Now CRT is back in the spotlight with a vengeance. Just this month it was discovered that Coca-Cola is instructing its employees to “be less white,” while a Buffalo, New York school district announced it will teach its pupils that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism.” In short, here we have another one of those radical progressive ideas, much like the transgender movement, which is based more on raw emotions and feelings than any sound science. After all, are black people free of the purported chromosome that has motivated the loathsome white man to oppress minority groups over the centuries? Well, when it is considered that America’s first black president, Barack Obama, dropped over 26,000 bombs on seven foreign countries in his last year in office, while a number of other African Americans, including, but not limited to, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Susan Rice have also been very casual about oppressing and killing foreigners, then the so-called ‘science’ behind CRT looks more like sheer quackery.
So, what is really going on with regards to race relations in the United States? It is the opinion here, as stated earlier, that the elite, in an effort to deflect attention away from the greatest wealth heist in US history, are hyping ‘systemic racism’ lest the people start asking pesky questions about economic justice, which is certainly in shorter supply now than ever before. Thus, there is a concerted effort by corporations, media, academia and even Hollywood to arouse tensions between blacks and whites when in reality there is very little. That’s certainly not to suggest that racism does not exist in the United States. Of course it does. But to believe that it has reached epidemic levels is simply outlandish and unsupported by the realities on the ground.
A rising tide of populism is swelling in the United States and the elite will do absolutely everything in its power, up to and including aggravating racial tensions, to keep the torches and pitchforks at bay.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. He is the author of ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream. @Robert_Bridge
Forbes Blames Global Warming for Record Cold – Science Disagrees
By James Taylor | ClimateRealism | February 17, 2021
In a major victory for Newspeak, the propaganda language in George Orwell’s novel “1984,” Forbes.com published an article yesterday blaming global warming for the record cold pummeling much of the nation. Google News, moreover, promoted the Forbes article by placing it at the top of search results for “climate change.”
The title of the Forbes article is “Blackouts In Texas and California Teach A Hard Lesson: Climate Change Is Costly.” The author writes, “These grid failures are wake-up calls and provide further proof that the impacts of climate change are not geographically constrained, nor do they take aim at one political party. One way or another, the cost of climate change on each of us will make itself known: in this both California and Texas can now agree.”
The author does not, however, explain how or why global warming causes record cold temperatures. Climate activists have occasionally, and when politically convenient, claimed climate change causes more polar-vortex extreme cold events. However, the scientific data strongly contradict Forbes’ assertion that global warming is to blame for the cold outbreak in Texas. Indeed, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data show the number days each year with below-freezing temperatures in Texas is neither unusually high nor unusually low so far this century.
Similarly, NOAA data for neighboring Oklahoma – which is also getting walloped right now by cold weather – show a decline in the frequency of very cold weather events in recent decades.
So, there clearly is no recent increase in the frequency of severe cold events in Texas and Oklahoma. So, by what logic does Forbes blame the current very cold conditions on global warming? Well, the author of the Forbes article is Chief Science Officer and Chief Commercial Officer at New Energy Risk, which is comprised of “climate-conscience venture capitalists” seeking to make money promoting “green” energy.
Forbes clearly has no conflict-of-interest standards for its authors and articles, nor does it attempt to investigate what the scientific data show regarding its articles’ claims.
No, NY Times, Climate Change Does Not Threaten Power Grids
By H. Sterling Burnett | ClimateRealism | February 19, 2021
The New York Times published a February 16 article claiming climate change is making America’s power grid more vulnerable due to an increase in extreme weather events. However, objective data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show the Times’ claim that extreme weather is becoming more common is false. The evidence indicates it is policies promoting wind and solar power to fight climate change, rather than climate change itself, that is putting the most pressure on power grids.
The Times story, “A Glimpse of America’s Future: Climate Change Means Trouble for Power Grids,” claims, “Systems are designed to handle spikes in demand, but the wild and unpredictable weather linked to global warming will very likely push grids beyond their limits.” The story continues saying “as climate change accelerates, many electric grids will face extreme weather events that go far beyond the historical conditions those systems were designed for, putting them at risk of catastrophic failure … it is clear that global warming poses a barrage of additional threats to power systems nationwide, including fiercer heat waves….”
This Times’ claims are convincingly refuted by objective climate data. Let’s examine them, one at a time.
The Times says climate change is making heatwaves worse, yet, as shown in Climate at a Glance: Heatwaves, data from NOAA demonstrates heatwaves have become far less frequent and severe in recent decades than they were in the early part of the 20th century (See the graph).

Indeed, temperature records show, the vast majority of each state’s all-time high temperatures were set during the first half of the 20th century – approximately 100 years of global warming ago. In fact, 40 states’ record-high temperatures were set before 1960, with 25 of the record highs being set or tied in the 1930s alone. That is three times more than have been set in the 33 years since 1988, when NASA’s James Hansen first pronounced humans were causing dangerous global warming. Only two states have set new record highs since 2000, fewer than the number of temperature records set in the 1890s alone, 130 years of global warming ago.
In addition, the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Similarly, objective data destroy allegations that climate change is to blame for record cold that struck Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere this past week. NOAA data show the number days each year with below-freezing temperatures in Texas is neither unusually high nor unusually low so far this century. Similarly, NOAA data for neighboring Oklahoma show a decline in the frequency of very cold weather events in recent decades. The assertion that climate change makes extreme temperatures more frequent on both ends of the temperature spectrum is destroyed by science – on both ends of the temperature spectrum.
Data from NOAA and the IPCC make it equally clear other extreme weather events that might be thought to cause power failures, like cold spells, floods, hurricanes, or tornados, have not increased in number or in severity as the earth has modestly warmed. You can see the evidence for yourself via the links in this paragraph.
While weather extremes aren’t increasing, policies enacted with an intent to prevent climate change are making the grid less reliable and flexible in response to peaks in power demand. In particular, state mandates to incorporate ever-greater amounts of intermittent wind and solar power, and federal and state subsidies for the same purpose, have resulted in the premature retirements of tens of thousands of megawatts of baseload coal power plants over the past decade. These power plants have been replaced by wind and solar industrial facilities which cannot be relied upon to provide a consistent flow of power to the grid because they are dependent on weather conditions. Nor can they be relied upon to provide on-demand power or peaking power during emergencies.
Even if the Times was right that climate change is making extreme weather events more common and severe, relying on increasing amounts of intermittent power can only worsen the problems of grid reliability, both during normal operation and during extreme weather events. Wind turbines don’t work if the temperature is too cold or if winds die down. Solar panels don’t provide energy at night, on cloudy days, or if covered by ice, snow, dust, or dirt.
Texas’s recent power emergency came as thousands of megawatts of wind power went off-line when the weather turned unusually cold, even before any ice and snow hit. Meanwhile, California has experienced repeated rolling blackouts during the summer months. What these two states have in common is they have both come to rely on increasing amounts of intermittent electric generating sources to power their respective grids. The evidence shows replacing reliable sources of electric power, like coal, natural gas, and nuclear with ever more intermittent power makes power failures more likely, whatever the weather. That’s the fact the New York Times should report.
Trend in Global Fires
By Zoe Phin | February 17, 2021
Climate alarmists claim that an increase in man-made greenhouse gas emission will cause more fires. For example …
Human-induced climate change promotes the conditions on which wildfires depend, increasing their likelihood …
Funk … says there is very well documented scientific evidence that climate change has been increasing the length of the fire season, the size of the area burned each year and the number of wildfires.
— DW
The clearest connection between global warming and worsening wildfires occurs through increasing evapotranspiration and the vapor-pressure deficit. In simple terms, vegetation and soil dry out, creating more fuel for fires to expand further and faster.
… Global warming will keep worsening wildfires …
Sounds serious. Is it true?
We show that fire weather seasons have lengthened across 29.6 million km2 (25.3%) of the Earth’s vegetated surface, resulting in an 18.7% increase in global mean fire weather season length. We also show a doubling (108.1% increase) of global burnable area affected by long fire weather seasons and an increased global frequency of long fire weather seasons across 62.4 million km2 (53.4%) during the second half of the study period.
— Nature: Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013
This is just about the most scientific paper I could find on the issue. Why are they obsessed with the length of the fire season? Why can’t they just answer the simple question: Is there more or less fire?
NASA has collected daily data on Active Fires since 2000.
I downloaded and analyzed all of their Active Fires data. Here’s the result:

Active Fires, March 2000 [Source]
Now it all makes sense. Climate scammers need to cherrypick locations and seasons in order to distract from the empirical truth that global fires have been decreasing. Disgusting.


