That select group of elites from around the world who come together at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland really are conspiring to control the direction of society and politics worldwide. It is a conspiracy in practice, not just a conspiracy theory. That is the admission of WEF Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab in his Monday welcoming remarks for this year’s WEF annual meeting.
Here is the conspiracy admission from Schwab’s speech:
Let’s also be clear. The future is not just happening. The future is built by us — by a powerful community as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world, but two conditions are necessary. The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities, that we serve not our only self-interest but we serve the community. That’s what we call stakeholder responsibility. And, second, that we collaborate. This is the reason why you find many opportunities here during the meeting to engage into very action and impact oriented initiatives to make progress related to specific issues on the global agenda.
The WEF annual meeting is not just some people getting together to chat, socialize, and hear some speeches. It is about, as Schwab states, bringing together a “powerful community” that pushes initiatives that “make progress related to specific issues on the global agenda” and by whom “the future is built.”
By the way, don’t be too comforted by Schwab’s assurance that the conspirators do all this conspiring while acting as “stakeholders of larger communities.” It is unlikely that many people at the WEF annual meeting are looking out for you as part of their communities. As the comedian George Carlin famously said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.”
Copyright © 2022 by RonPaul Institute
May 24, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism | WEF |
1 Comment
Is the UK now at the forefront of eugenics? Are the Covid-19 gene-therapy/altering vaccines the gateway to public acceptance of this? And has the pandemic provided cover for a takeover, not by scientific experts, but dangerous eugenicist nerds?
The Government’s head gene-gnome, Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance, recently spoke to Genomics England (a company owned by the Department of Health to provide ‘whole genome sequencing diagnostics’) on the potential future uses of genomics beyond the fields of healthcare and medicine.
The backbone to his argument was a reiteration of that contained within a report from the Government Office for Science called Genomics Beyond Health, published on January 26, 2022.
It opens with: ‘How would you feel if your genomic information made your car insurance more expensive? If you could find out whether your child was likely to excel at sport or academic pursuits, would you? Should criminal sentencing account for a person’s genomic predispositions? These are just some of the questions that we might face in the not-too-distant future.’
If government nerds are openly discussing such things and publishing their conclusions within the public forum, it means that such novel societal issues are already on their way. And, as befits the soiled morality of the new Petri Dish Epoch, it all reeks of dystopian degrees of experimentation and, well, eugenics.
Unfortunately, as a nation we appear not in the least perturbed by our new role as microbes in the ongoing phase three clinical trial that has seemingly become normal life in Britain; as exemplified by such government experiments as mask mandates, border closures, school closures and work-from-home orders under the still not ruled-out lockdown, alongside the not so experimental fear (‘nudge’ being the euphemism) programme designed to increase adherence to said measures, and the similarly experimental gene-therapy vaccines.
True to form, Genomics Beyond Health, like so many other such pandemic-era scientific reports, doesn’t concern itself with whether or not genomics should in fact have to impact our day-to-day lives at all, but acts rather as a forewarning system – ‘wrap your head around it now, people, ’cause it’s coming whether you like it or not’.
Which leads me to speculate that the current generation of ineffectual and proven-hazardous Covid-19 vaccines are nothing but a means by which – once having wormed their way on to the childhood immunisation schedule – succeeding generations will adopt the future technologies of eugenics by stealth.
Such a long-term objective simply could not be realised if the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency addressed its post-vaccination fatality and extreme adverse event statistics, as one would assume would be routine practice in such a so-called civilised society as ours.
The dismissal of these innocent casualties of the Covid-19 Pharmageddon, particularly as this relates to Genomics Beyond Health, lends credence to the Ministry of Defence’s unofficial view – in turn as it relates to the piecemeal augmentation of humans via their fusion with machines – that to help society face down future national security threats such as Disease X, for example, there could be a ‘moral obligation’ to utilise ‘treatments involving novel vaccination processes, and gene and cell therapies’.
Certainly, far fewer would have taken up the ‘offer’ of the current novel vaccination processes rushed out to crush Covid-19 had the number of adverse events shared the front pages alongside the manufactured case rates and spurious daily Covid death tolls.
So it should come as little surprise then, that on February 28, a month after the publication of Genomics Beyond Health, Pfizer published a complementary blueprint for how to help make the UK a world leader in the adoption of cell and gene therapies.
This is a goal they say could be delivered via ‘the creation of a Gene Therapy Taskforce, bringing together key government departments, agencies, and arm’s length bodies to work together on shared priorities and drive reform. This Taskforce should look to mirror the collaborative, rapid and results-focused approach that underpinned the (Covid-19) Vaccines and Therapeutics Taskforce.’
From pandemic to mock-endemicity. From Covid-19 Taskforce to Gene Therapy Taskforce. From unsullied human to mRNA guinea pig. From mRNA guinea pig to gene-edited superior ‘British’ citizen. From the eugenics of medicine to that of human augmentation. From the hangings of the Nuremberg Trials to a questionnaire and a fifty quid fixed penalty notice. And ultimately therefore, from reality to the Metaverse – the ever-changing climates (pun intended) of the Great Reset’s public health aspect.
Instead of addressing whether humanity should be subjected to the moral conundrums of non-health-based genomics in the first place, the report simply discusses to what conveniently loose and vague degree must the practice be regulated. ‘Will we need more regulation?’ it asks, as if it should even have to.
It continues: ‘We should also consider the impact that genomic services might have if they are offered to the public before the science is truly ready’ – a quite frivolous statement which could easily have been lifted from a pre-rollout Vaccine Taskforce report, the science behind the Covid-19 vaccines themselves long since having proved itself unready.
Yet this hasn’t stopped jabs going into the arms of children who do not require Covid-19 vaccination; the report is therefore all but informing us to expect yet more nauseating medical ethics when it comes to the gene therapies of the future.
‘Regulation on the use of genomic technologies in non-health fields is patchy, and risks being outpaced by advances in the technology … and the UK has no explicit legislation barring the use of genomic analysis in employment (or education) scenarios,’ outlines the report.
‘However, over-regulation risks stifling innovation,’ and (with doubtless a sly wink) ‘if governments hope to make more use of genomic data, that will ultimately need the public’s consent’ (read steal the public’s consent).
How can the microbe-citizens of the Petri Dish Epoch offer fully informed consent when their self-agency is being constantly diluted by the fearful water-torture dripping down upon them from an entirely captured media-pipette? Well, we already know how, don’t we – by their being hurriedly hoodwinked into believing any degree of consent crucial to saving both Granny and Great Britain.
During his discussion with Genomics England, Vallance asked (but made no attempt to answer) the question of whether genomics beyond healthcare, and the practice of assessing people’s genetic ‘liability’ within certain domains of everyday life – known as polygenic scoring – could end up going ‘Wild West’.
The domains he was referring to are such as employment (‘the selection of workers of optimal health or personality for a role’, for example), education (measuring genomic data at birth, ‘so as to enable earlier interventions to improve educational outcomes’, for example), criminal justice (‘to deter or divert those who may be predisposed to criminal behaviour’, for example), and insurance (adjusting ‘people’s car, home, or even holiday insurance’, according to polygenic scoring). It’s not eugenics though, we promise.
That what the scientists ensconced within, or in bed with, the British government are championing is in fact an unnatural system wide open to abuse, stigmatisation, apartheid and financial exploitation appears not to deter dangerous nerds such as Vallance.
He made it clear in his discussion with Genomics England that he is ‘definitely not, and the report is not, arguing for a heavy legislative hand on this, but a wise legislative look at what needs to be done, and a regulatory consideration’.
Wise like the mandates, legislation, guidance, and considerations of the pandemic, Sir Patrick?
The same dangerous nerds lied about the severity of the pandemic. They lied about the merits of locking down the country. They lied when they said that there were no early preventive treatments for Covid-19. They lied about both the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
On top of all that, they and many of their colleagues of similarly genetically-engineered morality – the Prime Minister included – lied about how they had unequivocally not broken the pandemic rules of their own design: Those rules to which the public were ordered religiously to adhere to no matter the dire personal or societal consequences.
Why would they not be capable of lying about the real aims of using genomics beyond health and medicine, and the future rationales behind its emergency use authorisations?
How many of the nation have repeatedly swabbed around their tonsils and up their noses, and then sent their mucus off to some government-approved eugenics centre, otherwise known as a PCR testing lab? I’ve done it – at one point I wasn’t permitted re-entry to my own country without doing so. Genius.
I doubt there will be much need for commercial ancestry tests in the far future, not when everyone’s genomic family tree will by then be roughly universal: You are of 25 per cent Neuralink, 25 per cent Pfizer, and 50 per cent broadly European descent.
April 20, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Covid-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Human rights, UK |
Leave a comment
IT IS reported that 21 councils have found a solution to the soaring cost of energy: a source of free electricity which they are providing to wealthy owners of electric vehicles.
One of the councils that has made this startling discovery is Lancaster District Council. Their website proudly proclaims ‘The council is providing free electricity’ for electric vehicle owners.’
A spokesperson for the well-represented Green Party on the council was unapologetic about how they prioritised the distribution of the ‘free electricity’. When asked why they favoured the provision of free fuel to the owners of already subsidised Teslas and Mercedes-EQs, rather than giving it to residents of sub-standard housing who were unable to heat their homes, she replied in a rather abrupt manner: ‘Don’t you know there’s a Climate Emergency! For goodness sake, it’s on the BBC every night! How do you expect the City Council to do its bit to control the weather if rich people drive around in their big cars belching out emissions that are literally killing baby polar bears. It is beastly of you to even ask that question!’
After taking a few moments to compose herself, she put down her cat, dabbed her eyes, and continued, ‘We already do a tremendous amount for the poor people. It is horrid of you to imply that we don’t care about them. We send them leaflets which tell them where they can buy cheap overcoats and jumpers. We encourage them to go to the library to keep warm, and we suggest that they buy a second hand bicycle so they can ride up and down our cycle paths. We even send them our ten favourite vegan quinoa recipes. We simply can’t do everything. There is only so much free electricity to go round. One day we hope to give everyone in the District an electric vehicle, or at least an electric scooter.’
When asked about the source of the free electricity, a representative of the City Council’s secretive Special Initiatives Department, based in a bunker in the Forest of Bowland, declined to give too much away. ‘Let me just say that we are working closely with Lancaster University, members of the Morecambe Witchcraft Society and local alchemists, but other than that my lips are sealed. However, I am allowed to tell you that we are about to make a major announcement about our work on the philosopher’s stone. Watch this space.’
Some have suggested that the electricity being given to electric car owners is not exactly ‘free’ but is courtesy of the council tax payer. If this is the case, it is clearly seen as a ‘vital service’. In a report about the decision to increase council tax in 2021, the Lancaster Guardian wrote that Anne Whitehead, the cabinet member with responsibility for finance, said: ‘We are acutely aware of the additional burden that this rise will place on some households and we do not want to have to ask households to pay more. But as with all public services, the City Council is under pressure financially and needs to protect the vital services it provides.’
January 30, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Green Party, UK |
Leave a comment
There have appeared a couple of stories recently that illustrate how there is only one “red line” that no one dares cross in Washington and that is criticism of Israel and its associated supportive mythologies of increasing “holocaust denial” and “surging anti-Semitism.” The rule is ruthlessly enforced by the Israel Lobby, often by its redoubtable Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is based in New York City but has a regional office in the capital, conveniently close to government offices, from which vantage point it can observe possible deviations and mete out instant punishment.
If one wants to learn how hypersensitive (and vicious) defenders of Israel and/or Jewishness can be it is only necessary to read about the recent experience of strongly pro-Israel Republican Senator Marco Rubio. He denounced “upscale liberals who control the media” in a tweet and was immediately attacked for “the anti-Semitic trope that Jews control the media,” which of course they do, but Rubio is too stupid and too fearful of Jewish influence to be suggesting that. So, one must conclude it is not even safe for a conservative friend of Israel to mention the “liberal media” for fear of being labeled as guilty of “coded anti-Semitism.” Likewise, any mention of the malign influence of George Soros by Republicans is likely to bring down the wrath of the usual suspects, not because it is a fiction but solely because he is Jewish and it implies that Jews can interact conspiratorially, which is demonstrably true.
Another interesting story concerns a government institution that I had never heard of before, the US Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad (USCPAHA), and guess what? It is nearly all about Israel, Jews and the so-called holocaust! If you don’t believe that bold assertion on my part, go to the organization’s website which includes multiple pictures of people handing out holocaust related “Cultural Pluralism Awards” and smiling for the camera.
The commission was created by Public Law 99-83 in 1985 and its ostensible purpose stated on the website is to “1. identify and report on cemeteries, monuments, and historic buildings in Eastern and Central Europe that are associated with the heritage of US citizens, particularly endangered properties, and 2. obtain, in cooperation with the Department of State, assurances from the governments of the region that the properties will be protected and preserved… The establishment of the Commission recognized that the population of the United States is mostly comprised of immigrants and their descendants. The United States has an interest in the preservation of sites in other countries related to the heritage of these Americans. The Holocaust and 45 years of atheist Communist governments created a critical need that led to the Commission’s establishment.”
The site also includes a list of “projects” , which are overwhelmingly Jewish/holocaust related and located in the parts of Europe where Jews settled. Alison Weir’s “If Americans Knew” has reported how in the past congress there were 70 largely hidden bills that in some way benefited Israel, and the creation of America’s Heritage Abroad has that smell to it, yet another gift that flies beneath the radar by being attached to a larger piece of legislation.
America’s Heritage Abroad only surfaced in the news due to a stink being raised by ADL over one of the organization’s 21 commissioners, all of whom appear to be Jewish judging from their names. He is Darren Beattie, who has been described as a “Right-wing conspiracy theorist [who] continues to occupy a position in the federal government given to him by Donald Trump, almost a year since Joe Biden took office and gained the ability to fire him. Beattie was appointed by then-President Donald Trump in November 2020 to serve on the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Its main responsibilities are seeking to preserve monuments in eastern and central Europe, many of which memorialize Holocaust victims. He gained new prominence in recent weeks promoting conspiracy theories about the Capitol riot, earning public praise from Trump.”
Recently, the ADL criticized the appointment and said that Beattie, who describes himself as a “proud Jew” on Twitter, should not be continuing to serve on the commission. Spokesman Jake Hyman complained that “Since Beattie’s appointment to the Commission in November 2020, he has continued to spread outrageous and deeply harmful falsehoods and misinformation, including about the January 6 insurrection, that are at odds with serving in such positions of official responsibility. We retain our view that Beattie, who once attended an event with white supremacists and participated in a panel discussion with white nationalist Peter Brimelow, should have no place on a commission that plays a special role preserving Jewish heritage sites from before the Holocaust.”
Beattie claims that he is still on the commission even though he no longer appears on its website. He states that “I’m proud to serve president Biden to honor the memory of the Holocaust” before criticizing ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt as a “Democrat apparatchik” who has “destroyed the reputation of the ADL during his tenure.”
So, the United States is now in the business of promoting holocaust remembrance on the taxpayer’s dime. Another fascinating news report that just surfaced also has a holocaust plus “surging” anti-Semitism back story. It is all about how numerous Biden nominees are stuck in the Senate waiting for approval, but it is really about Deborah Lipstadt who is described as a “renowned holocaust scholar.”
Lipstadt is the Dorot professor of Modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Atlanta’s Emory University, as well as founding director of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies. She has also held senior positions at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, another taxpayer supported enterprise that promotes the Israel narrative. Lipstadt has sharply criticized some progressives in the Democratic Party who have dared to criticize Israel, including Representative Ilhan Omar, for describing pro-Israel Americans as a “political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Such statements are “part of the textbook accusations against Jews,” Lipstadt countered, but Omar was, of course, right, though not allowed to get away with the truth when confronted by the Democratic Party establishment led by a foaming at the mouth Nancy Pelosi.
The White House announced in late July that Lipstadt would lead an expansion of the activity of the State Department’s Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, which is tasked with tracking and countering the alleged rise of anti-Semitism abroad. For the first time, the position will have the rank of ambassador, which makes necessary Senate confirmation.
Bear in mind that these are all mechanisms set up specifically to promote the narratives favored by international Jewry. Apart from affirmative action for blacks and other set-asides to favor them, there exists nothing in the US government to enhance the status of any other European, Latino or Asian ethnic groups or religious persuasions that is in any way similar. These commissions, offices and special ambassadorships were established through the assiduous marketing of their brand by Jews using their methodically exploited financial power and the political access that it buys. To cite only one example of what all that networking produces, politically wired Jewish organizations already receive more than 90% of the discretionary grants for “security” issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And the end result is that Washington is a helpless giant that is drawn into conflicts in the Middle East that it would best avoid while also funding the Jewish aggressors, most recently in response to a demand to rearm the Israeli military with $1 billion, conflicts which serve no US national interest.
Finally, should the United States be so obsessed with a narrative that is certainly in many respects questionable and which relates to events that largely took place many years ago overseas? Should the American taxpayer continue to foot the bill for all these contrivances to bind the US government hand and foot to the “heritage” of a small minority of the population and to its favored foreign state? These are questions that are almost never asked though, as Voltaire allegedly put it, “If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticize.”
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
January 18, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Israel, United States, Zionism |
4 Comments
Over the past several decades, the progressive Left has successfully fulfilled Antonio Gramsci’s famed admonition of a “long march through the institutions”. In almost every Western country, its adherents now dominate the education system, media, cultural institutions, and financial behemoths.
But what do they have to show for it? Not as much as they might have expected. Rather than a Bolshevik-style assumption of power, there’s every chance this institutional triumph will not produce an enduring political victory, let alone substantially change public opinion.
Even before Biden’s botched Build Back Better initiative, American progressives faced opposition to their wildly impractical claims about achieving “zero Covid” and “zero emissions”, confronting “systemic racism” by defunding the police, regulating speech, and redefining two biological sexes into a multiplicity.
Increasingly, the “march” has started to falter. Like the French generals in 1940 who thought they could defeat the Germans by perfecting World War One tactics, the progressive establishment has built its own impressive Maginot Line which may be difficult to breach, but can still be flanked.
That is not to deny the progressives’ limited successes. It has certainly developed a remarkable ability to besmirch even the most respected institutions, including the US military. But that is where its achievements stop.
While the Pentagon’s top brass focused on “domestic terrorists” and a progressive social agenda, it calamitously bungled its withdrawal from Afghanistan and appears utterly unprepared for Chinese or Russian competitors. And the effect of this progressive march is plain to see: the percentage of Americans who feel “a great deal of trust and confidence in the military” has dropped in just three years to 45% from 70%.
This decline in trust in major institutions, so evident in America, is also rife across Europe and Australia. In Europe, for example, young people express less pride in their cultural and religious heritage, and are almost three times as likely as their elders to believe that democracy is failing.
The great paradox of progressivism is that nowhere are its shortcomings more evident than in its geographic heartland: the dense urban centre. Conventional wisdom has dictated that America’s high-tech economic future will be shaped in dense urban areas, where superstar companies stand the best chance of recruiting superstar employees.
But while the upper crust of the labour force continue to head to the dense urban cores, on the ground people are moving in the other direction. Across the high-income world, not only in America but Europe as well, the vast preponderance of growth has taken place in suburbs and exurbs. In the last decade over 90% of all US metropolitan population growth and 80% of job growth took place on the periphery. On the ground, then, the progressive dream is withering.
The pandemic has greatly enhanced these trends, with downtown neighbourhoods recovering far less quickly than suburban, exurban, and small towns. But even if these changes are not permanent, at least not entirely, city residents will still have to contend with another pitfall of the progressive agenda: rising crime. Twelve American cities have experienced record homicides this year; all are ruled by Democratic, often progressive, leaders, many of whom explain away crime and excused, even praised, the looting and mayhem caused by protestors in the summer of 2020.
Yet despite this visceral impact on urban neighbourhoods, it is in education that our new hegemony could have its most long-lasting impact. The West’s new educational mandarins, increasingly strident and increasingly influential, have no use for our liberal inheritance, which they consider little more than a screen for racists and misogynists.
In Canada, we have seen an instance of “flame purification” for everything from old encyclopaedias and maps to Depression-era cartoons. In America, the disconnect between the professoriate and the people also keeps growing, as conservatives head towards extinction on many campuses: on some well-regarded campuses such as Williams, Swarthmore and Bryn Mawr, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans reaches between 70 and 132 to 1.
These trends have long been evident in the fading humanities and social sciences, but now even the sciences are becoming politicised. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that universities are losing credibility even among some traditional Leftists, who marvel at how they burnish their progressive credentials while making huge profits off their endowments and seriously underpaying most of their employees.
And just as with the growing disaffection for the military, teachers, students and parents are starting to push back. A number of teachers who have been “cancelled” or otherwise threatened for dissenting are now fighting back in the courts. There’s also considerable criticism from parents and alumni, some of whom are now pledging not to contribute to their schools, and instead support well-publicised and well-funded efforts to start new initiatives, such as the recently announced University of Austin. Even more importantly, would-be students are also voting with their feet: after decades of rapid expansion, the number of college students enrolments fell by 5% last decade, and dropped an additional 6.5% since 2019.
Likewise, only one in three Americans have confidence in their public schools, where the education establishment’s goal seems to be to obliterate merit. In my adopted home state of California, this “post-colonial” approach includes deemphasising the importance of tests, excusing bad behaviour, and imposing ideology on often ill-educated students. The San Diego Unified School District, meanwhile, is busily getting rid of mandates for such things as knowing course material, taking tests, handing in work on time, or even showing up; all these, the district insists, are inherently “racist”. This in a state that ranked 49th in the performance of poor, largely minority students. (Still, the situation could be worse: neighbouring Oregon no longer requires any demonstrable proof of competence to graduate.)
In the past year, this blindness has incited considerable public outrage. Criticism of Critical Race Theory buoyed the Republican win in Virginia in November, and has become a rallying principle for parents around the country, including a recall drive against San Francisco school board members.
Other parents are trying to opt out of the public system altogether. The pandemic saw the departure of more than one million American students from public schools, while 1.2 million families switched to home-schooling last academic year, bringing the total number of home-schooled students to 3.1 million, roughly 11% of the total. According to the Census Bureau, Black and Hispanic families now have the highest estimated rates of home-schooling, at 16% and 12%, respectively.
Meanwhile, the mass media, particularly its legacy outlets, constitute another progressive bastion losing credibility. One recent survey found that barely one in three Americans trusts the media, including a majority of Democrats, while only 15% of Americans have confidence in newspapers. Part of this surely stems from their bias: although there remain some powerful conservative voices, notably on talk radio and Newscorp properties, the vast majority of journalistic power lies with the Left. It’s the same story with social media, which increasingly dominates news access and is also widely distrusted.
But the media’s Maginot Line may prove more vulnerable than expected, and this breach is certainly a far better prospect than those that came with the German flanking. There is a definite challenge not just from the traditional Right but a plethora of new publications which offer intelligent analysis outside the establishmentarian party line, as well as from Substack. Unless the media oligarchs find ways to repress these elements, a resurgence of free thinking may rescue journalism from progressive editors and journalism schools.
The shift in the media parallels that in mass culture. As late as the Fifties, mass culture was seen as largely neutral. But in recent decades, it shifted towards a more monochromatic look — one which a significant portion of the public are fed up with. Gender flipping may excite progressive creatives, but politically correct remakes of household favourites have proved box offices disasters. Indeed, it’s striking that openly conservative presenters, such as Fox’s Greg Gutfeld, now do better in ratings than their more established network rivals like Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon.
Yet perhaps nothing is more ironic, and potentially dangerous, than the takeover of the corporate suite by progressive ideology. Traditionally, the dispersion of ownership and the conflicting views of entrepreneurs and inheritors fuelled the dynamism of democracy: you had far-Left businessmen like George Soros and doctrinaire Right-wingers like the Kochs in competition. They fought it out, and sometimes even aligned. But they came from diverse viewpoints.
Today this diversity of viewpoints is being obliterated by design, with corporate behaviour now married closely to the notion of the “great reset” and “de-growth”: an economy where improving conditions for the masses is replaced with lowering carbon emissions and diversity tokenism. Such standards, of course, do not apply to snotty private schools attended by their offspring, or areas that are home to their mansions.
The oligarchs may feel they deserve dispensation from the masses by their “good deeds”, but people are not as stupid or malleable as the ruling elites believe. Trust in major corporations, never too robust, is below 20%, less than one third that for small businesses. It is slowly becoming apparent that ‘woke capitalism’ will never solve divisions which are essentially economic. The key, notes Richard Parsons, former President of Citigroup, lies not with racial quotas or hiring transgender workers but the economic growth and opportunity. There will never be “unity”, he suggests, until people “feel it in their pockets”.
The question now is whether there will be sufficient pushback to turn the tide. Unlike local school boards, online magazines, and even alternative colleges, it’s difficult to replace or challenge an Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, or Morgan Stanley. Yet fortunately these institutions do not yet control all wealth. Big companies may have shamed themselves out of oil and gas, but investors are ramping up due to the soaring price of these assets.
So, here’s the good news. On what sometimes seems the inexorable course towards progressive capture, we can see multiple fronts of resistance, and the early congealing of independent-minded forces, from the rational Right to the traditional liberal-left. Our society may never regain the feistiness of previous eras, and our new elites might continue marching through our institutions. But as they become increasingly discredited, they would be unwise to forget that all long marches one day come to an end.
Joel Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute. His new book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism, is now out from Encounter.
January 5, 2022
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | Build Back Better, Great Reset, United States |
Leave a comment
The UK’s efforts to “protect the NHS” from being overwhelmed during the Covid-19 pandemic reportedly extended to asking families of disabled minors whether they should be resuscitated in the event their heart stopped beating.
The so-called “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNACPRs, were offered to families of children with autism and other learning disabilities amid concerns about pressure on the UK’s socialized National Health Service, the Telegraph newspaper reported on Sunday.
The media outlet cited interviews with families that were presented the opt-out for resuscitation during routine medical appointments. For instance, the mother of a 16-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome said that a clinic employee offered her the option of a DNACPR for her son during a checkup.
“It is a disgusting question,” said the mother, Kent resident Karen Woollard. “The health assistant was following a form and she was very polite about it – suggesting she knew I wouldn’t want it to be ticked – but the question should not have appeared. It was very upsetting.”
The mother of a 16-year-old boy with autism said her son was offered a DNACPR during an NHS appointment and initially agreed because he didn’t understand the question. The boy is happy and healthy and has won gold medals in swimming competitions, said his mother, Debbie Corns.
“I collapsed on the floor crying when I got home,” Corns said. “I am a strong person, but I was devastated… The doctor devalued his life.”
The article follows British media reports earlier this year on patients with mental illness and learning disabilities being given DNACPRs during the pandemic. But unlike the latest report, those allegations concerned adult patients, at least one of whom reportedly died unnecessarily for lack of resuscitation.
DNACPRs are typically used for people who are too frail to be saved through cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the event their heart stops or they stop breathing. Mencap, a UK charity that advocates for people with learning disabilities, reported in January that disabled adults were being told by medics that they wouldn’t be resuscitated if they fell ill from Covid-19.
The UK’s Care Quality Commission said in March that some patients and family members had been denied the opportunity to discuss their DNACPR status or challenge NHS decisions on whether they would be resuscitated. Hundreds of elderly care home residents were written off with unlawful DNACPR decisions, the commission found.
December 26, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism | Covid-19, Human rights, UK |
1 Comment
Facebook was recently raked over the coals by a former employee for having policies that give preferential treatment and protect high profile users only, but now it seems this is not such a rare occurrence among social media giants.
Take Twitter, for example, which just got exposed for running a secret program designed to give priority to its most prominent users, and protect them from what is perceived as attacks by “trolls and bullies.”
Twitter is carrying out its decision, Bloomberg reported, to protect the political elites and celebrities via a program called Project Guardian, that pushes reports about abusive content posted against these users to the front of the moderation queue.
Apart from shielding who Twitter picks as the most important people on the platform (reports about the secretive program say that many who are protected by it are unaware of this), the company is also able to control what content gets viral and has wide reach, and quickly stem the spread of tweets it disapproves of.
All this means that “regular” users are treated as second class citizens on the platform when they encounter what by Twitter’s standards qualifies for trolling and bullying, and flag such posts.
Twitter has not denied the existence of the program, but insists it is not meant to protect only famous people – and that’s apparently because the list of privileged users keeps changing, as head of site integrity Yoel Roth has told the media.
According to Roth, the decision on who to include depends on what degree of exposure a user has at any given moment, and claims that the program is also used to protect those who find themselves at the center of attention inadvertently, “because of a controversial tweet.”
Another argument this Twitter representative made against reviewing all allegedly abusive tweets with the same sense of urgency is that – “It would mean there’s no point in having a list.”
And Twitter seemingly lacks capabilities to manage its own platform at scale, meaning that it “has to” prioritize high profile users.
As for how one gets on the list of “protected Twitter species” – employees can recommend a user, and the company will respond to requests by agents, managers, and media outlets.
December 9, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Full Spectrum Dominance, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular |
Leave a comment
Slovakia has apologized for the forced sterilization of women under the communist regime and the following decade, condemning the practice which aimed to regulate the birth rate of the socially disadvantaged Roma peoples.
On Wednesday, the government adopted a resolution condemning the practice of forced sterilization and apologizing for the actions of previous administrations. “The government condemns sterilization as a means of regulating the birth rate of the socially disadvantaged, which took place mainly among Roma women,” the text of the resolution reads, according to Germany’s DW news.
The practice dates back to 1966 and continued after the collapse of the communist regime. The policy was part of a series of force measures taken against “citizens of Gypsy origin,” and aimed to “reduce the unhealthy population” by sterilizing women. The practice continued until 2004.
Official documents suggested the state intended to tackle health-related issues among the Roma community, however, modern research claims that sterilization often took place under pressure, with threats, and without a proper understanding of what the procedure meant.
In a statement, the government’s official for the Roma community, Andrea Buckova, condemned the historic human rights violation. “What the previous regime was capable of in relation to Roma women is inadmissible,” she stated, adding that “regulating the population of any minority or group is comparable to the methods of the Nazi regimes.”
Buckova noted that it was extremely concerning that these practices had continued until 2004, long after the fall of the communist regime.
Although the real number of victims is unknown, Buckova suggested that it was well into the thousands. In 1987 alone, some 1,823 were sterilized, the statement notes.
She said the government’s decision to apologize was the correct one and that the next step would be compensating those who fell victim to the practice.
The marginalized Roma community makes up 9% of Slovakia’s population, according to EU figures. Their exclusion from wider society was highlighted in September when Pope Francis visited the infamous Lunik IX slum in Kosice.
November 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Civil Liberties, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | European Union, Human rights |
Leave a comment
Will we remain silent while such a dark tide slides ever closer to our own shores, one country at a time?
He who remains silent is deemed to have granted his consent – or so the old tenet goes. Will we remain silent, or will we speak up loud and clear and truthfully?
Mark Twain said history doesn’t repeat but it rhymes. For five days this week Austria locked down its unvaccinated people. Almost two million were only allowed out to work and to buy food and such.
Many of those unvaccinated were therefore working in shops and cafes and restaurants and so on – as lowly servants, if you will – but as soon as their shifts ended they could not be in those same places, certainly not as customers.
Even before getting to the morality, or otherwise, of such rules, on what planet does that strategy even make sense? They were fit to serve the vaccinated their coffees, and to bag their purchases, but they were deemed otherwise unclean and unfit to be mixing with the good, clean people.
Austrians interviewed on the street were frighteningly unconcerned, unmoved, even supportive of the social hobbling of their fellow citizens. The virus must be stopped, they shrugged, ignoring or unaware of the fact no available vaccine fully prevents catching or spreading Covid.
It seemed clear to me that the move was not about health, but about compliance and obedience – or rather yet another bid to tackle and subdue the stubborn refusal to comply and to obey.
Do as you’re told. Now the authorities have the whole population locked down once more anyway. Presumably some bright spark somewhere had the notion that stigmatising and segregating the unvaccinated might have the desired effect – but it certainly wasn’t going to halt the spread.
Not in Vienna, where a brothel offers punters “30 minutes with the lady of your choice” – and I’m quoting there – in return for taking the jab.
Here we have women placed on a par with kebabs, burgers, ice cream, lottery tickets and the rest of the freebies offered as inducements to compliance.
This is not about health – certainly not the mental and physical health of women. Trafficking of women for sex work is a feature of modern slavery across the world – but we don’t care about that, do we?
Instead we turn a blind eye while men queue up to take a medical procedure and then help themselves to a woman.
Left unsatisfied, Austria’s elected officials felt they had to flex their muscles some more – and announced that in February it will be compulsory to accept the vaccine. No jab … no alternative at all.
Other countries – Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy – are on the same path as Austria, towards locking down the unvaccinated. Perhaps those governments will also opt to make vaccination compulsory sooner rather than later.
It seems frighteningly clear to me that the authorities in Austria and elsewhere are looking for scape goats now, people to blame for a virus that won’t comply or obey either.
Infection rates in many of those countries where the greater part of the populations is fully vaccinated – with two and three doses – are rising fast.
Gibraltar is one of the most vaccinated regions on the planet – so too Israel – and yet infections continue to increase in both places.
Rather than consider the possibility that the months-long strategy is not the right one – or to at least concede it is not having the predicted effect – it is easier to push blindly ahead and point the finger of blame at someone else.
History shows bad governments often look for people to blame, often some of their own people. Uniting a large part of the population against a smaller part – giving frightened, angry people a focus for their frustrations, and also for their disgust – is as old as the hills.
If the 20th century has a lesson for us, a lesson that ought to be as permanent, as indelible as any scar, or tattoo, it is that encouraging citizens to regard a minority of their fellows as unclean, as vectors of disease, generally ends badly, badly for everyone.
In Poland in 1941 there was a propaganda campaign that spread the message that Jews spread typhus, a lethal disease. Blaming an identifiable minority for the spread of disease is a ghost we should have laid to rest long ago.
But here it is, back again. Turns out, it never went away at all. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. The tone is changing across Europe now, reverting in many ways to the rhythms of an old tune. Can you hear the drums yet, and the tumbrils?
What troubles me most of all is that there has been not a word of condemnation of Austria’s decision from our leaders. Not even the sounding of a note of caution. Where too are the faith leaders. You need look no further back in history than the 20th century, when churches turned their back on those made outcasts.
Now Durham Cathedral has declared that some Christmas services will only be for those holding NHS vaccine passports. I’m not sure how that fits with Matthew 25:35 “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me.”
How on earth have we got here, and so quickly. Austria, a supposedly liberal modern democracy has decided to assume full rights over the flesh and blood of its citizens. A government in 21st century Europe has decided it has the final say over what chemicals go into the bodies of those citizens.
There is no way of denying that that is the crossing of a Rubicon. Once people have to surrender control of their bodies to the state, those people are in a different world – a world in which they are not autonomous beings, but puppets on strings. It is also likely a world from which there is no turning back.
Some will say – “Well, they can leave the country if they don’t like it. Go live somewhere else.” But where in the world to go? In the 20th century there were still places to go in the world to escape situations and regimes that had become unliveable and a threat to life.
But what if the whole world changes in the same way? What if all the world becomes Austria? I want to hear our government condemn the decision taken by their counterparts in Austria. At the very least, I want our government to promise on whatever is holy to them that no such laws will ever be passed here in Great Britain.
If they will neither condemn, nor swear an unbreakable oath, then the only conclusion to be drawn is that they are watching to see how it goes in Austria and elsewhere – perhaps with a view to following suit.
Over the last 20 months, there has grown an unmistakeable note of contempt in the words of some politicians.
Last week Health Secretary Sajid Javid had a question from someone, on Twitter, someone concerned that after having had two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, he was now being offered the Moderna variant as a booster. Javid’s reply, in its entirety, was: “So what? How about you show some respect for the NHS?” “So what?” “How about you show some respect?” Open brackets – insect – close brackets.
This level of contempt directed at someone already taking the medicine as instructed. All of this from the Health Secretary, a servant of the people when I last looked. “How about you don’t ask any questions and just do as you’re told?” From a politician elected to serve the people, at our expense, I say that’s across the line into a place elected representatives should not go.
History rhymes. We lament the chattel slavery of our past while turning a blind eye to women and children trafficked for sex, children in deadly dangerous mines in the Congo, harvesting the cobalt for our phones and electric cars, making the cheap clothes we wear once and throw away.
We turn blind eyes and deaf ears to uncounted numbers of girls raped and abused in Rotherham and other towns all over England, for fear of upsetting community relations. We promise never to forget the Holocaust while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the abuse, perhaps [citation needed] genocidal abuse, of the Uyghur Muslims in China.
We are already being encouraged to turn a blind eye to the locking down of Austria’s unvaccinated.
Will we turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to compulsory medical procedures for her citizens? Will we remain silent while such a dark tide slides ever closer to our own shores, one country at a time.
He who remains silent is deemed to have granted his consent – or so the old tenet goes. Will we remain silent, or will we speak up loud and clear and truthfully?
Martin Luther King said we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Will we speak up to withhold our consent? Will we disobey unjust laws? And if we will not – then who are we?
November 25, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Science and Pseudo-Science, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | COVID-19 Vaccine, European Union, Human rights, UK |
1 Comment
Part of the Great Reset or the Build Back Better and Younger program?
You probably recall that nearly a year ago an FDA advisory committee voted almost unanimously not to license the new drug Aduhelm for Alzheimer’s dementia. Then FDA, with Janet Woodcock at its helm, gave the drug a license anyway.
The data showed the drug was not helpful and probably harmful. Three members of the committee quit loudly and independently, when FDA’s decision became known. Their actions, and the publicity over this decision, are probably what sank Janet Woodcock’s promotion to Commissioner of FDA; she has been acting Commissioner since the start of the Biden administration, and faces a required termination in that position next month. Otherwise she would probably have been a perfect pick: an MD, a female, and a completely unscrupulous bureaucratic player who was willing to do anything she was instructed to do, even if it gave the agency a tarred reputation.
Now a bit more information has become available, and microscopic bleeding occurred in 19% of those on the drug. It looks like a disaster. Another remdesivir?
Brain Inflammation Seen in Four of 10 Alzheimer’s Aducanumab Patients
— Details about edema, hemorrhage ARIA published
by Judy George, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today November 22, 2021
November 24, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | FDA, United States |
Leave a comment
It seems the world’s elite just can’t stop ruining childhoods.
According to the Daily Mail, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos ‘has led a 400-strong parade of private jets into COP26,’ which includes Prince Albert of Monaco, tons of other royals, and dozens of “green” CEOs – creating a giant traffic jam which required empty planes to fly 30 miles away to ‘nearby’ Prestwick to find parking.
On Sunday, MailOnline observed at least 52 private jets landing at Glasgow – while estimates put the total number flying in for the conference at 400. Conservative predictions suggest the fleet of private jets arriving for COP26 will blast out 13,000tonnes of carbon dioxide in total – equivalent to the amount consumed by more than 1,600 Britons in a year.
Prince Charles was among those travelling by non-commercial plane from the G20 in Rome, MailOnline can reveal. Flight records suggest the plane was an MOD jet. – Daily Mail
Yes, the same Prince Charles hypocritically calling for a “vast military-style campaign” with trillions at it’s disposal in order to force “fundamental economic transition” when it comes to the environment.
And, the excuse:
“His Royal Highness has personally campaigned for a shift towards Sustainable Aviation Fuel and would only undertake travel to Rome when it was agreed that sustainable fuel would be used in the plane,” said a Clarence House spokesman, who added that so-called sustainable fuel would be used “wherever possible… from now on.”
Boris Johnson flew in from Rome on an Airbus A321 – only to be stuck circling Glasgow for 20 minutes due to the sheer number of private jets arriving for the event. Johnson was stuck behind the president of South Korea – who also flew in from Rome following the G20 conference.
For those without private jets, hundreds of less fortunate COP26 delegates were unable to reach the event due to brutal storms which crippled railroads and forced people to sleep on the floor of London’s Euston station.
Bezos’ appearance comes on the heels of celebrating Bill Gates’ 66th birthday on a nearly $3 million per week superyacht off the coast of Turkey – reaching the boat by helicopter.
The Amazon founder met with Prince Charles to discuss climate change, tweeting “The Prince of Wales has been involved in fighting climate change and protecting our beautiful world far longer than most. We had a chance to discuss these important issues on the eve of #COP26 — looking for solutions to heal our world, and how the @BezosEarthFund can help”
Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is expected to create 2.2 million pounds of carbon to reach the summit – as he’s bringing four planes, the Marine One helicopter, and an enormous motorcade.
Don’t these people have Skype?
November 1, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Progressive Hypocrite, Supremacism, Social Darwinism |
Leave a comment
Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health once experimented on foster children with AIDS, testing experimental drugs on the children while almost always failing to provide an independent advocate to make sure the children remain safe and healthy. This happened throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, and the practice was exposed in 2005.
According to Anthony Fauci’s biography page on the official NIH website, the longest-serving government employee began working for the NIH in 1968. In 1984, Fauci became the Director of NIAID, a position he still holds today.
As Director of NIAID, Fauci oversees research to “prevent, diagnose, and treat infectious and immune-mediated diseases, including HIV/AIDS” according to the website. In 1988, Fauci became the first Director of the Office of AIDS research.
While Fauci was in these roles, it was revealed in 2005, the NIH oversaw the enrollment of thousands of foster children with AIDS into controversial programs that allowed them to receive experimental drugs designed to combat the illness. Some of these children later died, and most were not given independent advocates that were promised.
According to John Soloman, then reporting for the Associated Press, the NIH “promised in writing to provide an independent advocate to safeguard the kids’ well-being as they tested potent AIDS drugs,” however, these advocates failed to materialize for almost every child involved. The subjects – foster children without stable home lives – ranged from infants to late teens.
Solomon wrote that, with a general lack of oversight, “Several studies that enlisted foster children reported that patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and sharp drops in infection-fighting blood cells, and one reported a ‘disturbing’ higher death rate among children who took higher doses of a drug, records show.” (READ MORE: NIH Quietly Changes Definition Of ‘Gain-Of-Function’ Amid Fauci, Wuhan Lab Scandal Fallout)
“Some foster children died during studies,” reported Solomon after noting that the majority of children appear to not have received an advocate. “State or city agencies said they could find no records that any deaths were directly caused by the experimental treatments,” he noted.
A 2009 article from The New York Times claims that no New York City children “died as a result of the trials” and that children in the city were not selected for the trials based on their race.
Still, the Times found “that the agency had not always followed its own protocols and kept poor records.” The Times also discovered that some of the children died, but those involved with the research asserted the deaths were unrelated to the experimental drugs.
Interestingly, Fauci’s name is not mentioned in any of the articles about foster children being used for experiments, despite him having a leadership position at the time. Further complicating the omission, Fauci was loathed by the LGBT community at the time the experiments were being conducted and when the news about the foster child experiments broke. (READ MORE: NIH Funds ‘Toxic Brain Injection’ Monkey Experiments, Holes Drilled Into Skulls, Devices Implanted Into Brains)
In 2018, only two years before the mainstream media would lionize Fauci via its nonstop coverage of COVID-19, then-82-year-old AIDS activist Larry Kramer described Fauci as “The consummate manipulative bureaucrat who speaks out of too many sides of his mouth.’’ Kramer died in May of 2020.
We also know that Fauci was actively, personally engaged in AIDS research around the time the foster children were being used for experiments. In fact, Fauci told NPR earlier this year that, in the 1980s, he would clandestinely visit gay bath houses, bars, and night clubs with the goal of physically witnessing the transmission of HIV live and in person.
October 30, 2021
Posted by aletho |
Supremacism, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Human rights, NIAID, United States |
3 Comments
Aletho News
Aletho News 