“Antisemitic at their core”: Four House Dems blast progressive colleagues for rhetoric on Israel, Jews

The rift between progressives and establishment Democrats exploded today over the issue of Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Four House Democrats signed a letter to Joe Biden demanding more action to curtail a spike in hate crimes against Jews following the latest iteration of the Hamas war on Israel. The letter cites a number of reasons for the rise in attacks, but takes aim particularly at members of their own caucus for statements the four call “antisemitic at their core”:

“Displeasure” is certainly one word for it; another might be “disgust.” The letter doesn’t call out anyone by name, not even Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican clearly meant in the passage about equating mask mandates to the Holocaust. This passage doesn’t identify anyone by name or party either, but it’s very clearly aimed at members of The Squad and their allies in the progressive caucus:

We also reject comments from Members of Congress accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state” and committing “act[s] of terrorism.” These statements are antisemitic at their core and contribute to a climate that is hostile to many Jews. We must never forget that less than eighty years ago, within the lifetime of our parents and grandparents, six million people were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust because they were Jews. Israel has long provided the Jewish people with a homeland in which they can be safe after facing long centuries of persecution.

No one can possibly mistake who is meant in this passage from Josh Gottheimer, Elaine Luria, Kathy Manning, and Dean Phillips. Nevertheless, Seth Mandel isn’t too impressed by this effort:

Yes, but the rift over The Squad’s hateful rhetoric is now out in the open, at least. This comes at a very awkward time for Nancy Pelosi, who had probably hoped that Taylor Greene had provided enough of a distraction to keep the media at bay. This open letter undoes at least some of that strategy, although just how much of it is anyone’s guess. The media probably won’t rush to cover this accusation, in general anyway, although some outlets have been reporting on this rift for a while. For instance, the New York Post reported almost a week ago that Squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had intimidated pro-Israel Democrats into silence:

Jewish activists accused powerful Democrats in the New York congressional delegation of cowering to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other leftist House members of the “Squad” by failing to forcefully stand up for Israel during its fight with Hamas in the Gaza strip.

“Chuck Schumer? Who?,” a frustrated Michael Nussbaum, president of the Queens Council of Jewish Organizations, said sarcastically of the powerful Senate majority leader who represents New York.

“I’m surprised and disappointed. Members of the New York congressional delegation who have a lot of sway have not spoken out forcefully to defend Israel, and they have not denounced AOC or corrected her,” said Nussbaum. …

Nussbaum and other activists are seething that the New York pols who claim to be pro-Israel have been quiet and meek, giving Israel critics like AOC a leg up in the war of public opinion.

He argued they’re afraid of repercussions from AOC and the left if they speak up.

“A lot of Democrats are afraid of the AOC contingent. They’re sacrificing their principles to avoid primaries,” Nussbaum said.

Nussbaum finally got his wish today with this letter, even if it doesn’t name AOC specifically. We’ll see how much interest the media has in a Democratic civil war when it erupts, even as politely as this.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2021/05/26/antisemitic-at-their-core-four-house-dems-blast-progressive-colleagues-for-rhetoric-on-israel-jews-n392721

Jews Are Literally Being Singled Out And Attacked On The Streets

Jews Are Literally Being Singled Out And Attacked On The Streets

US-ISRAEL-CONFLICT-PROTEST

(Photo by ED JONES/AFP via Getty Images)

BRIANNA LYMAN

REPORTER

May 25, 2021

9:10 PM ET

A Jewish man was kicked in the back in Germany as three individuals walked by, barely batting an eye. Two Jewish boys were also accosted while walking down a New York City street. Anti-Semitism is in full swing with little acknowledgement from the media, politicians and so-called “Social Justice arriors.”

The New York Police Department (NYPD) was looking for three suspects Saturday regarding two anti-Semitic incidents in Brooklyn, according to NBC 4 New York. In one incident three men allegedly jumped out of a car in Borough Park and made anti-Semitic comments toward four Jews who were observing Shabbat. The group then banged on a synagogue door and kicked in a mirror on a car parked outside before fleeing in a car, according to the report.

The Department of Justice announcedSaturday that a Brooklyn man, Ali Alaheri, was charged for allegedly setting fire to a Yeshiva and a synagogue on May 19.The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) were called to investigate a possible hate crime on May 17 after video footage appeared to show an Orthodox Jewish man running for his life as two cars chased him through a parking lot.One video was taken from the point of view of one of the pro-Palestinian protesters, with the caption “This Zionist flipped us off for supporting Palestine. We went after him. Y’all some big ass p**sys bitches. You can run but you can’t hide.”

The LAPD responded to another call just one day later regarding an “assault with a deadly weapon” after Jewish diners were allegedly attacked by a pro-Palestinian mob.

Footage shows two individuals eating outside of Sushi Fumi in downtown Los Angeles when a group of pro-Palestinian individuals drive by and began shouting at the diners .

Subsequent video shows the pro-Palestinian individuals attacking the two Jews on the sidewalk before one of the victims tries to fight back. The unidentified victim was treated at a local hospital, the LAPD confirmed to the Daily Caller.

A 29-year-old Jewish man was beat down in the middle of Times Square Thursday. Videos posted to Twitter show a group of pro-Palestinian individuals beating the man, later identified as Joey Borgen, as bystanders try to help.

“He was going to a pro-Israel rally and wearing his yarmulke and he got ambushed,” Barry Borgen, Joey’s father, told the Daily Caller. “They climbed out of a van and basically pounded him into the street.”

“It’s open season on Jews,” Borgen added. (RELATED: Schumer, Pelosi Slow To Condemn Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes)

During another incident, pro-Palestinian protesters ripped an Israeli flag out of the hands of a pro-Israel activist before appearing to punch the victim in the stomach as he attempted to retrieve his flag.

Blocks away in the Diamond District, pro-Palestinian protesters were seen harassing Jews, screaming “Fuck you, you Zionists.”

Another video captured pro-Palestinian individuals throwing fireworks at Jews.

Meanwhile, a Jewish family was assaulted in South Florida while walking home from synagogue. A group of men drove by the family screaming things like “free Palestine, die Jew, F you Jew, I’m gonna rape your wife,” before an armed bystander stepped in and intervened, according to CBS 12.

Another video shows an Orthodox Jewish man standing on the street in Germany when a man walks up to him and kicks him in the back as at least three bystanders just walk past.

In another incident in Germany a 41-year-old Jewish man walked past three men before he was allegedly punched in the face and verbally assaulted, according to Fox News.

Meanwhile police in Illinois were investigating reports of vandalism at a synagogue last Sunday after the Persian Hebrew Congregation was left with a smashed window and a pro-Palestine flag and sign were left outside, according to ABC 7 Chicago.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) saidanti-Semitic hate crime reports were up to 193 reports from 131 the week prior. Between May 7 and May 14 the group said there were more than 17,000 tweets using some variation of “Hitler was right.”

So why the spike in anti-Semitic crimes?

Jonathon Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, said the surge in anti-Semitism followed from the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

“As the violence between Israel and Hamas continues to escalate, we are witnessing a dangerous and drastic surge in anti-Jewish hate. We are tracking acts of harassment, vandalism and violence as well as a torrent of online abuse.”

The U.S., and the entire world has adopted a numbness to anti-Semitism and an indifference towards hate crimes against Jews has become blatantly obvious over the past several days.

President Joe Biden waited days before condemning the nationwide attacks against Jews.

“The recent attacks on the Jewish community are despicable, and they must stop,” Biden tweeted Monday. “I condemn this hateful behavior at home and abroad – it’s up to all of us to give hate no safe harbor.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi also waited until Monday to condemn the hate crimes while Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer put out a single, brief tweet Friday, before again condemning the anti-Semitic hate crimes Monday.

The silence has been deafening, especially when you take into account hate crime data.

The FBI’s 2018 report Jewish Americans were 2.7 times more likely than black Americans to be the victim of a hate crime in 2018 and twice as more likely than a Muslim when data is adjusted for population size, according to AEI.

The trend has remained constant for hate crimes. Yet, so-called “Social Justice Warriors” have spent the past year protesting and rioting to show solidarity with black lives.

But with the recent documented spike in anti-Semitic hate crimes, no cities have seen wide-spread protests or riots; no cities have been burnt down, no towns were destroyed. In fact, few companies have come out in solidarity with the Jewish community.

Bret Stephens published an op-ed in The New York Times (NYT) that raises this as a complaint.

“If there’s been a massive online campaign of progressive ally ship with Jews, I’ve missed it. If corporate executives have sent out workplace memos expressing concern for the safety of Jewish employees, I’ve missed it. If academic associations have issues public letters denouncing the use of anti-Semitic tropes by pro-Palestinian activists, I’ve missed them.”

“It’s a curious silence. In the land of inclusiveness, Jews are denied inclusion.”

The rise in anti-Semitic crimes over the past several days coincides with violence in Israel and Gaza. Progressives, including politicians on the left, have fueled the fire with their anti-Israel rhetoric.

Actor Mark Ruffalo walked back an earlier comment in which he claimed in “hyperbole” that Israel was committing a “genocide.”

“I have reflected & wanted to apologize for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’. It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful & is being used to justify antisemitism here & abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders even called for everyone to “tone down the rhetoric” on Sunday after CBS News’ John Dickerson noted “there are a number of liberals who use the word ‘apartheid’ to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.”

Progressives won’t speak up against the attacks because they think if they speak up against it they’re also speaking against anti-Zionism and they don’t want to look “pro-Zionist.”

An opinion piece published in The New York Times claimed the “flagrant public assaults on Jews – sometimes in broad daylight– [is] motivated by anti-Zionism.”

But the U.S., is thousands of miles away from Israel. Attacking Jews has nothing to do with anti-Zionism and everything to do with anti-Semitism.

Conflating the two is dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as remaining silent on the two.Tags : anti semitismhate crimejewish

GOP Calls for Fauci to be Fired after His Covid-19 Flip Flops Statement

Personally I would think a REAL INVESTIGATION would take place because he obviously knew exactly what was going on! To make light of and deny using “Gain of Function” is a disgrace… Although totally expected! Especially from Fauci!

I’m sure they will protect him in every way possible because after all… They have to ensure that Obamas involvement doesn’t come crashing down too. The truth is already out so they may just be cruzing down the road of self destruction. We shall see!

The LIGHT ALWAYS OUTSHINES THE DARKNESS!

OPERATION ANGELS ENVY: Historic Drug Busts In DC Area, 7 States Linked To Sinaloa Cartel, DEA Says

By B911 – May 26, 202107

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, leaders from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office join Jarod Forget, Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the DEA’s Washington Division, to announce the results of Operation Angels Envy.

Operation Angels Envy involved a set of multi-year investigations, identifying large networks of suppliers and distributors in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, working for a dangerous transnational drug trafficking organization with direct ties to the Sinaloa Cartel. The operation uncovered and dismantled seven, violent, drug trafficking organization cells in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia area, and resulted in 33 high-level individuals charged, hundreds of pounds of deadly drugs being taken off the streets, $5.4 million in U.S. currency, 32 rifles, 81 handguns, and other assets seized.

“This is good work. This is important work,” SAC Forget said at the press conference today. “All of us want and deserve safe neighborhoods. We need to act together to stop and hold those accountable who are bringing drugs and violence into our neighborhoods, and threatening our family’s safety and wellbeing, for their own, selfish gains. I am happy to say, together, we did that today.”

“Much like these drugs having a far-reaching impact in our country, I am proud to say the work of our detectives in Loudoun County in combination with other DEA Task Force members had an even further impact on the operations of the Sinaloa Cartel,” said Loudoun County Sheriff Mike Chapman. “Our law enforcement community must continue to fight this scourge and protect our citizens, and I am glad that we have such dedicated partners in our law enforcement profession that put their lives on the line every day to do just that,” Sheriff Chapman added.

Since May 2017, investigations under Operation Angels Envy led to the identification and takedown of seven independent, violent drug trafficking organizations operating in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area; their Los Angeles-based transportation network, which used tractor-trailers and shipping crates to move ton quantities of methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, and other drugs across the country; and their Sinaloa Cartel supply cell. These drug trafficking organizations would then transfer profits and trafficked firearms back to the Sinaloa Cartel. Investigations into the takedown of the transportation network and supply cell led to the identification and takedown of other violent drug trafficking organizations in California, Missouri, Ohio, New England, and New York.

Operation Angels Envy culminated in one of the largest cumulative takedowns in the area – with 33 individuals charged; seizure totals of 473 pounds of methamphetamine, 42 kilograms of fentanyl (enough to potentially cause over 21 million people to die of an overdose – more than the population of D.C., Maryland, Virginia, combined), nine kilograms of heroin, 129 kilograms of cocaine, 5,100 pounds of other drugs, over $5.3 million in drug proceeds, 114 firearms (many of which were assault-style weapons); and over $700,000 in jewelry and vehicles.about:blank

SAC, Jarod Forget; Acting U.S. Attorney, Raj Parekh; and Loudoun County Sheriff Mike Chapman, made the announcement at a press conference at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria, Va., today.

SAC Forget would like to thank the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office; Fairfax County Police Department; Arlington Police Department; Alexandria Police Department; Virginia State Police; Vienna Police Department; Homeland Security Investigations, San Diego; U.S. Postal Service Inspection Service; Washington DC, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Washington D.C.; DEA Los Angeles Division; DEA New England Division; DEA Miami Division; DEA Dayton Resident Office; DEA Mexico Country Office; and the DEA Special Operations Division for their work in Operation Angels Envy investigations. And a special thank you to the Baltimore/ Washington HIDTA and OCDETF for their assistance. SAC Forget would also like to thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecuting the cases.

Guess who is so determined to get everyone in the world “poked” for the you know what… that it is now censoring all content that it deems as promoting “vaccine hesitancy”

Facebook is so determined to get everyone in the world “vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) that it is now censoring all content that it deems as promoting “vaccine hesitancy” (VH).

Two whistleblowers recently came forward to tell their stories to Project Veritas, revealing that Facebook’s goal is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to comments and posts that question the “safety and efficacy” of Chinese Virus injections.

Facebook also launched an internal program to force a “decrease in other engagement on VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”

According to one of the whistleblowers, Facebook uses a tiered system to determine which content should be censored or buried, and to what degree. Anything categorized as “shocking stories,” even if they describe true events that “raise safety concerns” about the injections, is automatically demoted on Facebook.

“True events or facts” that cast a “negative” light on Wuhan Flu shots are considered by Facebook to be “misinformation” and are automatically hidden from view, the whistleblower explained.

Even if the information is authentic, verifiable, and could help someone avoid vaccine-induced injury or death, Facebook will no longer allow users to see it.

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it,” the other Facebook insider added. “If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”

Be sure to watch the full Project Veritas exposé on Facebook’s censorship of Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) truth below:

There is no more free speech on Facebook

A leaked document outlining the “experimental launch” of the program explains how Facebook tested it out before the official launch to determine whether or not it was capable enough of capturing content for rapid disposal.

The document states that the experiment only applied to “comments that have also been created beneath vaccine-related posts,” which the social media giant has already been flagging with “disinformation” overlays for at least the past year.

Because many Facebook users are ignoring these overlays by continuing to share and comment on posts with truthful information about the dangers and ineffectiveness of Chinese Virus injections, the Mark Zuckerberg empire is upping the ante with this new targeted program against user comments.

“Comments are a major surface relevant to our B2V efforts,” the document further explains about the rationale behind the program.

“We estimate that the prevalence of VH comments in Authoritative Health Pages is 25.3% and for other pages 19.42%. Now that the v1 Vaccine Hesitancy classifier has been cleared for this usecase, reducing the visibility of these comments represents another significant opportunity for us to remove barriers to vaccination that users on the platform may potentially encounter.”

In essence, Facebook is still allowing its users to have “free speech” concerning Wuhan Flu shots. The caveat is that nobody else will get to see that free speech because Facebook is now secretly censoring it before others have the chance to see it.

“People aren’t allowed to have a voice, and yet Facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have a voice,” one of the whistleblowers lamented.

Remember when Facebook also tampered with the 2020 election?

We saw much the same behavior from Facebook during the 2020 election cycle. Zuckerberg and his minions were caught censoring posts about election fraud and vote tampering, making it appear as though Joe Biden and Kamala Harris legitimately won – which they did not.

At the same time, Facebook prioritized content on its platform that perpetuated the lie that Biden and Harris won, and that there is “no evidence” that the 2020 election was unfairly stacked against Donald Trump.

Now that the election scandal has moved on and the media and government are focused on Chinese Virus injections, Facebook is once again doing its part to spread propaganda, censor free speech, and steer the “hive mind” of its user base into getting jabbed.

“It’s amazing how Facebook feels that they must patrol people’s legitimate commentary about vaccines in order to try and coerce more people into get vaccinated, which is something I don’t understand,” reports The Right Scoop.

“What’s hypocritical about this is that I remember when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was having internal discussions at Facebook about the vaccines actually changing people’s DNA / RNA and suggesting skepticism about that last year. But now if you want to have such discussions, CENSORSHIP FOR YOU while free speech for him. Yeah, makes sense.”

Be sure to listen to the full roughly 22-minute Project Veritas episode above to get the full scoop on Facebook’s pro-vaccine, anti-free speech agenda. This is an important subject that deserves critical attention, especially since these jabs are killing people at an astounding rate.

More related news stories about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) and Big Tech’s relentless efforts to censor the truth about it can be found at Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

TheRightScoop.com

NaturalNews.com

Tagged Under: banned, Big Tech, Censored, Censorship, coronavirus, COVID, election, Facebook, free speech, medical fascism, Medical Tyranny, Orwellian, Project Veritas, speech police, tech giants, thought police, Tyranny, vaccine hesitancy, vaccine wars, zuckerberg

Facebook Executive BRAGS About Increased Censorship of So-Called ‘Hate Speech’ | Newsbusters

Facebook recently took the opportunity in a new report to brag about how much content it has censored.

Braggers ALWAYS talk too much! Can’t wait for this to backfire! You know it will! It always does!

Facebook Executive BRAGS About Increased Censorship of So-Called ‘Hate Speech’

May 24th, 2021 3:24 PM

Facebook recently took the opportunity in a new report to brag about how much content it has censored.

The Big Tech company released its quarterly Community Standards Enforcement Report. Facebook VP of Integrity Guy Rosen noted in the report that in the first Quarter (Q1), which included January through March of 2021, that so-called “hate speech” on the platform “continues to decrease.” 

The report noted that content it decided was “hate speech” constituted “0.05-0.06%, or 5 to 6 views per 10,000 views.” According to a graph provided in the blog post, the “[p]revalence of hate speech violations” for “Jul-Sep 2020” was “0.10%-0.11%,” which would yield approximately a 50 percent decrease compared to Q1 of 2021.

— Read on www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/kayla-sargent/2021/05/24/facebook-executive-brags-about-increased-censorship-so

France’s Bernard Arnault Becomes the World’s Richest Person

France’s Bernard Arnault Becomes the World’s Richest Person

The Briefing

  • French billionaire, Bernard Arnault, became the world’s richest person with a net worth surpassing $186B
  • Arnault, whose fortunes are largely tied to luxury conglomerate LVMH, has seen a staggering 145% increase in his net worth since the beginning of the pandemic
🇫🇷
🇺🇸
🇺🇸

France’s Bernard Arnault Becomes the World’s Richest Person

This week, French billionaire, Bernard Arnault, became the world’s richest person.

Arnault’s rise into top spot is particularly noteworthy since American billionaires – particularly in the technology sector – have dominated the world’s richest people ranking for a number of years. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos remains neck-and-neck with Arnault, with Elon Musk still within striking distance.RankNameCountryNet Worth (May 24, 2021)1Bernard Arnault France$186.3 billion2Jeff Bezos United States$186.0 billion3Elon Musk United States$147.3 billion

Jeff Bezos began 2021 in top spot, but has been challenged by both Elon Musk and Bernard Arnault. The former took a hit after Tesla’s stock began to cool off after hitting a record high in Q1 2021.

Arnault’s name may be new to some, but he has been on of the top five richest people globally since 2018, and has been a billionaire for well over a decade. The French tycoon got his start in the fashion space by parlaying a fortune made in construction into the purchase of Christian Dior in 1985.

Vive la France

Bernard Arnault oversees an empire that includes many iconic French luxury brands, including; Louis Vuitton, Dom Pérignon, and Christian Dior. His luxury group, LVMH (Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy), also spans retail and hospitality industries.

It may be surprising that LVMH is thriving during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the company has been buoyed by strong sales in Asia – especially China.

In January 2021, LVMH completed a deal for Tiffany & Co for nearly $16 billion, in what is possibly the largest luxury brand acquisition in history.

» Like this? Then you might like this article on The World’s Richest People 2021

Where does this data come from?

Source: Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaire Tracker (Data as of May 26, 2021)
Note: Rankings on the Forbes Billionaire Tracker fluctuate throughout the day. Given the similar net worth of both Jeff Bezos and Bernard Arnault, the two men may trade top spot back and forth for a time.

John Isaac has been found dead, also under highly mysterious circumstances.

Hunter Biden certainly has had more than his fair share of strokes of luck lately.

First, despite all of the evidence found on his laptop, nothing has stuck to him.

Next, after John Isaac, the owner of the computer repair shop where Hunter Biden left his laptop gave it to Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Giuliani, in turn, provided it to the FBI as evidence.

Unfortunately, the FBI managed to lose the laptop under mysterious circumstances, and thus all of the evidence contained on it.

Finally, last week, after being harassed and bullied at his home in Delaware by associates ostensibly tied to the Bidens and the ever-present deep state, Mr. Isaac closed up his shop and moved to Colorado, where he opened up a new computer repair shop in hopes of returning his life back to normal.

And now, John Isaac has been found dead, also under highly mysterious circumstances.

Early Wednesday morning a loud explosion was heard throughout South Park, CO, waking up residents from their sleep. When police and fire arrived at the scene, they were confronted by a blazing inferno that had entirely engulfed Mr. Isaac’s new computer repair shop.

A forensic examination found that the cause of the explosion was a laptop that had been dropped off by a local high school student, Eric Cartman. Young Mr. Cartman had ostensibly brought in his laptop because he had inadvertently viewed German poop porn on it in which his mother Liane, who is regarded as a local slut by many South Park residents, played a starring role.

The event had so traumatized the young man that he wanted his hard drive wiped.

In a bizarre coincidence, this is the very same Eric Cartman that was a first-hand witness to the murder of Clinton Foundation investigator Kenneth McCormick, which is currently under investigation by the FBI.

Exactly how the explosives found their way onto Eric Cartman’s laptop is a mystery, although Eric’s Neighbor Kyle Broflovski was able to offer some insights:

“OMG! They didn’t kill Kenny?

Those bastards blew up Eric’s laptop! How are we going to watch porn now? Eric was the only one of us with a laptop and access to the internet.

I bet it was those Clinton Foundation people, the same ones that killed Kenny the last time.”

This is not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last, that those who dare to investigate the Biden/Clinton/Obama crime syndicate will pay with their lives.

Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners

Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners

Joe Biden met with Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakhstani business associates of his son’s at a dinner in Washington, DC, while he was vice president, records on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop show.

The dinner, on April 16, 2015, was held in the private “Garden Room” at Café Milano, a Georgetown institution whose catchphrase is: “Where the world’s most powerful people go.”

Vadym Pozharskyi, an executive of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, to thank him for introducing him to his father.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together,” Pozharskyi wrote on April 17, 2015

nypost.com/2021/05/26/hunter-biden-arranged-secret-dinner-with-business-partners-and-vp-joe/

Bodily Integrity and Informed Choice in Times of War and Terror

We extend special thanks to Robyn S. Shapiro, Human Rights editorial board member, for her assistance as special issue editor of this edition discussing body rights and body ethics.

Law is the dominant force behind American medical ethics, and has been for at least the past half-century. That lawyers and judges, rather than physicians, have set the agenda for medical ethics in the United States is a bit surprising to many in the field of medical ethics, but it should not be. Medicine has historically been based on paternalism. The Hippocratic physician was obligated to act in the best interests of the patient-as the physician judged those interests-and to “do no harm.” American law, on the other hand, is based on liberty and justice, principles that, among other things, led to the law’s adoption of the doctrine of informed consent-better termed informed choice-under which individuals make the ultimate decision about what, if anything, will be done to their bodies. All of the articles in this issue make that central point from a remarkable variety of perspectives.

The question of when the law assumed the dominant role in defining ethical medical practice can be debated, but my nomination is at the “Doctors’ Trial” at Nuremberg. The end of World War II was marked by the birth of the international human rights movement, the formation of the United Nations, and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The “Doctors’ Trial” was an important piece of this picture. U.S. judges, presiding under military jurisdiction in Nuremberg, Germany, found fifteen Nazi physicians guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their actions in conducting or authorizing lethal and torturous medical experiments on concentration camp inmates. More importantly, the court articulated what has come to be called the Nuremberg Code, which sets forth the legal requirements for human experimentation. The most significant provision is the first of ten: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential . . . the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. . . “

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares bodily integrity central to both human rights and human dignity, providing in Article 5, for example, that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Most physicians, of course, do not view human experimentation as torture, but the treaty that followed the declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, made the link unmistakable by adding an additional sentence to the UDHR’s Article 5 in its Article 7: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This is, of course, now a fundamental precept of international human rights law. Moreover, under the treaty, Article 7 is nonderogable, even “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”

In the United States, our courts later adopted and applied the doctrine of informed consent to the therapeutic as well as the research setting, reversing the Hippocratic ethic by placing choice in the hands of patients rather than physicians. As pivotal as the doctrine of informed choice is now to both law and medical ethics, its application in some circumstances remains contested, as Robyn S. Shapiro discusses in her overview of the controversy surrounding the payment of living donors for solid organs. Lawyers continue to be called upon to advocate for their clients whose right to bodily integrity has been ignored or abused. Moreover, physicians sometimes have affirmative obligations to act to help their patients that reliance on informed consent alone cannot resolve. Kathryn L. Tucker, for example, accurately describes the epidemic of untreated pain as a “human rights tragedy.” She could as accurately have described physicians’ failure to treat their patients’ pain and suffering as torture. It is a scandal that the medical profession ignores such widespread suffering, and it will likely take vigorous legal action to change medical practice in this realm. Similarly, Shawna L. Parks correctly notes that institutionalizing juvenile offenders should require that they be provided basic mental health care. Susan Berke Fogel and Lourdes A. Rivera demonstrate how religious guidelines can frustrate and prevent good medical care, and why lawyers should insist that when the two are in conflict, “the medical needs of the patient must prevail.”

Looking at informed consent directly, Stephen F. Hanlon and Robyn S. Shapiro argue persuasively that there is more at stake in human experimentation than physical injury: such experimentation without consent is also an affront to human dignity, and courts should recognize a dignitary harm even in the absence of physical harm when informed consent is not obtained. The Nazis showed us the extreme physicians could go to in the service of the state. Kathy Swedlow helps us understand that when physicians act as agents of the state to involuntarily medicate a death row inmate so that person (certainly not a “patient”) can be executed, the drugging can meet neither the legal requirement of informed consent nor the Hippocratic injunction to “do no harm.” And Thomas May reminds us that soldiers are people too. Although soldiers may relinquish their right to refuse medical treatment upon enlisting, they retain, as all humans do, their right to refuse to be subjects of human experiments-and so retain their right to refuse experimental or investigational drugs and vaccines, even in wartime. The Nuremberg Code is, after all, a wartime document and made no exceptions for informed consent for either war or the soldiers assigned to fight it.

It should go without saying (but, of course, it doesn’t) that civilians retain all of their rights to bodily integrity, even during war and times of domestic emergencies, and that under no circumstances should civilians be subjected to forced vaccination or other bodily invasions-even those deemed “necessary” by military, medical, or public health officials. Human rights lawyers should resist current proposals to grant public health officials the power over the bodies of civilians during a bioterrorist attack or other public emergency. Such proposals are not only destructive of basic human rights, they are counterproductive in that they replace a medical and public health system based on truthful communication and trust with one based on fear and arbitrary power. Terrorism by others is no excuse for torture by us.

Read more from

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol30_2003/spring2003/hr_spring03_intro/?fbclid=IwAR3ZC2V6gXGWvOXvNWd5WBzey7_SEfaKgv9x7ZvZ5y9kpc_TT-QDshfx1CU

Ingredient Lists: The FDA Admits They Can’t Do Their Job

Ingredient Lists: The FDA Admits They Can’t Do Their Job

How many times have you heard the argument that the ingredients in our food are safe to eat, simply because they are “Approved” by the FDA. I’ve heard this statement many times in the media recently, and I’m sure you have, too. I wasn’t going to let the opportunity slide to tell you what I really think when someone says that an ingredient has been rubber stamped by the FDA and is automatically safe to eat. 

There’s an implication out there that everything allowed in processed food – preservatives, artificial sweeteners, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers – have gone through some sort of rigorous testing by the FDA proving they’re okay to eat – but in most cases they haven’t!

fdabuilding

Given the FDA’s mission to “protect the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of…our nation’s food supply”, it would only make sense that they would be front and center in approving new food ingredients before they hit the market – however – this is not necessarily the case.In fact, the FDA is sometimes not even aware that a new ingredient has been introduced into our food. 

New food ingredients are often approved by the manufacturer themselves, and not by the FDA.

While there are some food additives that the FDA has approved before they hit the shelves, this has proven to be a burdensome process. The FDA claims that so as not to waste government resources, they will just let the manufacturer decide whether an ingredient is safe to eat or not.

That’s right – all an ingredient manufacturer has to do is hire their own experts to claim under “reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use” and the manufacturer may deem it as “GRAS”, which stands for “Generally Recognized as Safe”. This is the green light to start adding it to food products.

A manufacturer can then voluntarily send their GRAS determination to the FDA, but this is not mandatory. Even worse, if the FDA raises questions about an ingredient received in a voluntary GRAS notice, the manufacturer can just withdraw their noticeand still use the ingredient in food products! This practice is nothing short of alarming, and is allowing companies to skirt around the FDA and essentially put whatever they want into our food. 

This issue has become a monster that’s impossible to control. Back when Congress gave the FDA authority over food additives (in 1958), there were about 800 additives. Today, the number of known ingredients has swelled to about 10,000 and continues to grow. The National Resources Defense Council estimates that roughly 1,000 food chemicals have been secretly added without notification to the FDA, and say that GRAS should really stand for “Generally Recognized As Secret”. Even the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner, Michael Taylor, recently confessed:

“We simply do not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals… we do have questions about whether we can do what people expect of us”

You can’t put your confidence in the FDA, when it comes to food additives. 

While some additives may be safe in small quantities, the FDA cannot regulate cummulative consumption when particular additives are being added to an insurmountable number of foods without any post-market oversight. For instance, even if you think you’re eating healthy you could easily be eating the ingredient carrageenan (that is linked to intestinal issues) at every meal: in your morning coffee and yogurt at breakfast, soup and deli-meat sandwich for lunch, and Lean Cuisine frozen dinner. What is the cumulative amount of carrageenan in this diet? No one is evaluating that. The FDA readily admits:

“We do not know the volume of particular chemicals that are going into the food supply so we can diagnose trends. We do not know what is going on post-market.”

The FDA is asleep at the wheel and the Food Industry is in charge.

The big food industry has proudly taken it upon themselves to approve food ingredients… and why wouldn’t they? It’s the perfect opportunity for them to create chemicals that help them to make products cheaper and quicker, without 3rd party oversight into their safety. In August, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (an industry group comprised of over 300 big food brands such as Pepsico, General Mills, Kellogg’s and Kraft) announced they are unleashing an initiative to “improve the process and increase transparency for making Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determinations” and will “take the lead in defining a standard that will provide clear guidance on how to conduct transparent state of the art ingredient safety assessments…”. 

Who wants the Grocery Manufacturers Association to take the lead here? I know I don’t.

This was clearly a move to give the public a warm and fuzzy feeling about the safety of our food, without making any real progress and putting more power into hands of Big Food. According to the chief regulatory affairs attorney for the Center for Science In The Public Interest, Laura MacCleery, “That this is seen as a step forward neatly illustrates the dysfunction built into the current system. It is outrageous that FDA doesn’t already have the identity, much less the safety data, of all substances added to the nation’s food supply”. There is undeniable evidence of institutional corruption at the FDA, as they’ve allowed pharmaceutical companies to lobby for regulations that “serve their interests” and have minimized the role of the FDA. So, allowing the food corporations to take the lead in determining what ingredients are safe to eat is inexcusable.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has called out the FDA for its lax practices and asked them to strengthen their oversight of food ingredients. According to the GAO’s audit of the FDA in 2010 they found some huge problems with the way the FDA is running things. Although I think their entire report is required reading, I’ve summarized some highlights here for you.  

The FDA is not aware of many GRAS determinations:

“FDA generally does not have information about other GRAS determinations because companies are not required to inform the agency… once a company concludes that a substance is GRAS, it may market the substance, even if FDA finds that the notice does not provide a sufficient basis for GRAS… Without information about all GRAS determinations, FDA has less awareness of substances in the nation’s food supply and less knowledge of the potential cumulative dietary exposure of GRAS substances… (This) makes it difficult, if not impossible, for public health authorities to attribute a food safety problem to a specific GRAS substance…. FDA’s oversight of their safety would be improved if companies were required to make the agency aware of their GRAS determinations”.

Companies can hire their own experts to determine their product is GRAS and there are no conflict of interest guidelines in place:

“While FDA has issued guidance to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest among it’s own staff who look at scientific issues and the safety of GRAS substances, it has not issued any guidance on the subject for companies to use with their own scientific experts… Expert panels can be comprised of a company’s own staff or outside experts hired by the company… FDA has not issued any conflict of interest guidance.”

Companies are not held accountable or required to keep records of their GRAS determinations:

“FDA has not taken certain steps to ensure companies maintain proper documentation to support their GRAS determinations… it intended to conduct random audits of data and information maintained by these companies. However, according to FDA officials, the agency has not conducted such audits”.

FDA has failed to conduct ongoing reviews of GRAS substances, including those that raised concerns over 30 years ago:

“FDA last engaged in a systematic reconsideration of the safety of GRAS substances in the 1970s and 1980s.  This effort raised questions about the safety of almost three dozen GRAS substances…from about 1972 through 1982, the committee reviewed the safety of 422 substances directly added to food… In all, the committee questioned the safety of 35 of these substances… unless evidence was provided to FDA showing these substances safety, it expected FDA to revoke their GRAS status… As of December 2009, FDA had affirmed 17 of these 35 substances as GRAS…(and) FDA had not issued regulations on the remaining 18 substances and could not readily explain why, even though almost 30 years had passed”

The GAO concluded that there are GRAS ingredients currently on the market that may not be safe:  

“questions have been raised about the safety of numerous GRAS substances over the last 50 years and some have been banned as a result.  In the future, other substances now considered GRAS may also prove to be unsafe”.

For these reasons, I believe that we need to take responsibility for our own health and not rely on the FDA to protect us.

 This may not be news to you, but so many people are relying on these antiquated regulations – so we need to spread the word! Please share this post with your friends and family, and with anyone who tries to tell you that an ingredient is safe just because it’s “approved” by the FDA! 

Next time they say such a thing…you’ll be armed with the truth!

We must read the ingredient lists on the food we eat – if you don’t recognize the ingredient, put it down and run as fast as you can!

Xo,

Vani 

P.S. Are you jumping from diet to diet and nothing seems to work? Are you sick of seeing contradictory health advice from experts? In my new book, Feeding You Lies, I blow the lid off the lies we’ve been fed about the food we eat – lies about its nutrient value, effects on our health, label information, and even the very science we base our food choices on. I guide you through a 48-hour Toxin Takedown to rid your pantry, and your body, of harmful chemicals – a quick and easy plan that anyone

According to the New York Democrat, “We all know the commission is an urgent, necessary idea to safeguard our democracy,” Schumer said. “We have to get it passed. Each member of the Senate is going to have to stand up and decide: Are you on the side of truth and accountability or are you on the side of Donald Trump and the big lie?”Schumer Sets Up Senate Vote On Sham “9/11 Style” Commission; RINOs Join Dems

Schumer Sets Up Senate Vote On Sham “9/11 Style” Commission; RINOs Join Dems

chuck schumer

Congress is set to blow town for its latest extended vacation. However, not before Democrats try to push through Nancy Pelosi’s sham “9/11 style” commission to investigate the so-called “insurrection” at the Capitol.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced that he planned to bring the bill that would officially set up the commission to a vote. This would set the stage for hearings that will be used to politically persecute supporters of former President Donald J. Trump in a gross travesty of justice that will be a media spectacle.

According to the New York Democrat, “We all know the commission is an urgent, necessary idea to safeguard our democracy,” Schumer said. “We have to get it passed. Each member of the Senate is going to have to stand up and decide: Are you on the side of truth and accountability or are you on the side of Donald Trump and the big lie?”

Democrats continue to pound the talking point of the “big lie”. This accurately describes their false narrative of what took place on January 6 when a group of election integrity protesters briefly shut down Congress.

While the events of the day have been distorted to the point where Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has dishonestly called it an “all-out attempted coup,” nothing could be further from the truth. The mostly peaceful protesters were more interested in posing for the media cameras and taking selfiesthan overthrowing the government.

The bill passed the House last week with the support of 35 Republicans led by malicious actor Liz Cheney and the perpetually whiny Adam Kinzinger. It also featured the members of the “Problem Solver’s Caucus,” a treacherous pack of anti-Trump RINOs.

Schumer needs 60 votes and 10 Senate Republicans to similarly join the ranks of Democrats in order to overcome the first hurdle and the first defectors are obvious.

Failed former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a man with an unhealthy obsession with Trump rushed to join Schumer’s lynch mob.

Romney’s vendetta against Trump put him into the Democrats’ camp the minute that he arrived in Washington as Utah’s junior senator. His vote was a slam dunk after he previously joined them on both impeachments.

Also saddling up with Schumer is RINO Lisa Murkowski of Alaska who frequently clashed with Trump and faces an uncertain future in her bid for reelection next year. The ex-POTUS has already said that he would enthusiastically support a primary challenger.

The third head of the Never Trump hydra, Susan Collins edged closer to throwing her support behind the proceeding. The tribunals will likely resemble the infamous 1930s Moscow show trials when opponents of the communist regime were hauled before a politicized kangaroo court.

Whether or not Schumer is able to wrangle an additional 7 votes from a pool that includes Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy, and other anti-Trump Republicans remains to be seen. However, it may be a tough task with Richard Burr already voicing skepticism and Marco Rubio up for reelection in Florida. Rubio needs Trump’s support to fend off Democrat Val Demmings next year.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell who despises Trump and his supporters has remained lukewarm to the creation of the commission. The kangaroo court would have subpoena power that would be immediately abused by Democrats. Perhaps even with the goal of dragging the former president himself in front of the political circus.

Democrats and the old guard Bush-McCain-Romney GOP establishment badly need to breathe new life into the “Big Lie” of the “insurrection” which has already taken major hits. One being the fib that a Capitol Police officer was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. Also the fact that regardless of how much that Democrats and the media lie, the only violent death that day was Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt. She was gunned down in cold blood by a still-unnamed assailant.

The vote could take place as early as Thursday.

Rare Video of ‘Brave New World’ Author From 63 Years Ago

Rare Video of ‘Brave New World’ Author From 63 Years Ago

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
February 20, 2021

STORY AT-A-GLANCE –

Aldous Huxley wrote “Brave New World,” a nightmarish vision of a future society known as the “World State,” ruled by science and efficiency, where emotions and individuality have been eradicated and personal relationships are few
When Huxley wrote the book, optimism about technological advancements were high and there was widespread belief that technology would solve many of the world’s problems. “Brave New World” demonstrates the naiveté of such hopes by showing what can happen when technology is taken to its extreme
Huxley predicted the technological capability to bypass reason and manipulate behavior through subliminal means. Today, social media platforms and search engines use sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms to push certain kinds of information in front of us
Huxley’s ideas appear to have influenced the technocracy’s planning. The World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda includes the strangely ominous dictum that “you will own nothing and be happy”
Huxley argues that in order to create the dystopian future presented in his book, you have to centralize wealth, power and control. Hence, the way to protect against it is to insist on decentralization
The video above features a 1958 interview of Aldous Huxley with Mike Wallace. It really is a great glimpse from the past. Wallace was smoking on the set, but that was natural back then, and Rod Serling, who produced the “Twilight Zone,” did the same. Interestingly, they both developed lung cancer.

You might recall that Huxley wrote the classic novel “Brave New World,” in which he presents a dystopian vision of a future society known as the “World State,” a society ruled by science and efficiency, where emotions and individuality have been eradicated and personal relationships are few.

Children are cloned and bred in “hatcheries,” where they are conditioned for their role in society from an early age. There are no mothers and fathers as natural procreation is outlawed. There are no family units.

Embryos are sorted and given hormonal treatments based on their destined societal classification, which from highest to lowest are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. The Alphas are bred and conditioned to be leaders while the Epsilons are designed for menial labor, free of higher intellectual capacities.

At the time Huxley wrote the book in 1931 (it was published the year after), optimism about technological advancements were high and there was widespread belief that technology would solve many of the world’s problems. “Brave New World” demonstrates the naiveté of such hopes by showing what can happen when technocracy is taken to its extreme.

Huxley believed his world of horror was right around the corner and, today, just shy of 60 years later, we’re starting to see Huxley’s “World State” closing in around us in the form of the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s transhumanist agenda and the Great Reset, designed to trap us inside a net of constant surveillance and external control.

Enemies of Freedom

Huxley also penned a series of essays called “Enemies of Freedom,” which he discusses in the featured interview. The series outlines “impersonal forces” that are “pushing in the direction of progressively less freedom,” and “technological devices” that can be used to accelerate the process by imposing ever greater control of the population.

Huxley points out that as technology becomes more complex and complicated, it becomes increasingly necessary to form more elaborate hierarchal organizations to manage it all. Technology also allows for more effective propaganda machines that can be managed through those same control hierarchies.

Huxley cites the success of Hitler, noting that aside from Hitler’s effective use of terror and brute force, “he also used a very efficient form of propaganda. He had the radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.”

With the advent of television, Huxley foresaw how an authoritarian leadership could become a source of “a one-pointed drumming” of a single idea, effectively brainwashing the public.

Beyond that, Huxley predicted the technological capability to “bypass the rational side of man” and manipulate behavior by influencing people on a subconscious level. This is precisely what we’re faced with today.

Google, but also to a large extent Facebook, has been collecting data on you for nearly two decades. They have created massive server farms that are capable of analyzing this data with deep learning and artificial intelligence software to mine information and generate incredibly precise details on just what type of propaganda and narrative is required to surreptitiously manipulate you into the behavior they are seeking.

Huxley also points out the dangers inherent in advertising, especially as it pertains to marketing of political ideas and ideologies:

“Democracy depends on the individual voter making an intelligent and rational choice for what he regards as his enlightened self-interest in any given circumstance but …

There are particular purposes for selling goods, and [what] the dictatorial propagandists are doing is to try to bypass the rational side of men and to appeal directly to these unconscious forces below the surface so that you are in a way making nonsense of the whole democratic procedure, which is based on conscious choice or on rational ground …

Children are quite clearly much more suggestible than the average grownup and, again, suppose that for one reason or another all the propaganda was in the hands of one or very few agencies, you would have an extraordinarily powerful force playing on these children who are going to grow up and be adults …

You can read in the trade journal the most critical accounts of how necessary it is to get hold of the children, because then they will be loyal brand buyers later on. Translate this into political terms, the dictator says they will be loyal ideology buyers when they’re grown up.”

Decentralization Protects Freedom; Centralization Robs It

Huxley argues that in order to create the dystopian future presented in his book, you have to centralize wealth, power and control. Hence, the way to protect against it is to insist on decentralization. It’s surprising that even 60 years ago Huxley was wise enough to understand this profoundly important principle.

I believe that it is the decentralization of the internet that is required to prevent censorship and manipulation in the future. This means that websites and platforms are not stored in one central place that can easily be controlled and manipulated but, rather, widely distributed to thousands, if not millions, of computers all over the world. It would work because if there is no central storage it can’t be removed.

Decentralized platforms allow the majority of power to reside with the individual. Technologies that can be easily misused to control the public narrative must also remain largely decentralized, so that no one person or agency ends up with too much power to manipulate and influence the public. Our modern-day social media monopolies are a perfect example of what Huxley warned us about.

The same goes for economic institutions too. Today, we can see how the role of the central bank (in the U.S. known as the Federal Reserve) — a privately-owned entity with the power to break entire countries apart for profit — is forcing us toward a new global economic system that will impoverish and quite literally enslave everyone, with the exception of the technocratic social bankers themselves and their globalist allies.

Our Orwellian Present

A contemporary and student of Huxley was George Orwell (real name Eric Blair1), who wrote another dystopian classic — “1984” — published in 1949. The two books — “1984” and “Brave New World” — share the commonality that they both depict a future devoid of the very things that we associate with having a healthy, free, creative, purposeful and enjoyable life.

In “1984,” the context is a society where an all-knowing, all-seeing “Big Brother” rules with an iron fist. Citizens are under constant watch. Privacy is nonexistent, and language is twisted to justify and glorify oppression.

Some of the spectacles of 2020 could have easily been ripped straight out of the pages of “1984,” as riots were described by cheery news anchors as “mostly peaceful protests,” even as city blocks were engulfed in flames behind them and people were bleeding to death in the streets. For those familiar with the book, such scenes were difficult to watch without being reminded of 1984s “double-think.”

Orwell Versus Huxley

There are differences between the two works, however. While Orwell foresees people being forcefully enslaved by an external agency, and kept in that state by the same, Huxley’s vision is one in which people have been so thoroughly conditioned that they come to love their servitude. At that point, no external authoritarian ruler is actually required.

If you think about it, I’m sure you will agree that this is clearly the most efficient strategy to take control of the population. Moore’s law and the exponential improvement in computer processing capacity has exponentially accelerated the global elites’ ability to precisely identify how to implement peaceful control that will have the majority virtually begging for tyranny.

In Huxley’s “Brave New World,” people have fallen in love with the very technologies that prevent them from thinking and acting of their free will, so the enslaved maintain their own control structure.

As noted by Neil Postman in his book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business,” in which he compares and contrasts the futures presented by Huxley and Orwell:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.

As Huxley remarked in ‘Brave New World Revisited,’ the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’

In ‘1984,’ Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In ‘Brave New World,’ they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”

The Promise of the Great Reset

One can argue about who predicted the future best, Orwell or Huxley, but in the final analysis, I think we’re looking at a mixture of both, although it seems obvious to me that Huxley was more prescient and he was actually Orwell’s mentor. Huxley’s concerns are far more serious as the programming is essentially silent, and it is patently evident that the technocrats have been highly successful in implementing this strategy in the past year.2

That said, we’re facing both the threat of externally imposed authoritarianism and control predicted by Orwell, and the subversive, subliminal programming through mindless entertainment and the lure of convenience proposed by Huxley.

Undoubtedly, the combination is a powerful one, and likely far more effective than either control strategy by itself. I’ve already touched on how Orwell’s work is playing out in the real world through the “double-think” mental gymnastics we get from the controlled, tightly centralized mainstream media these days.

For an example of how Huxley’s ideas have influenced the technocracy’s planning, look no further than the globalists’ call to “build back better” (video above) and the World Economic Forum’s 2030 agenda (below), which includes the strangely ominous dictum that you will own nothing and be happy.

The unstated implication is that the world’s resources will be owned and controlled by the technocratic elite, and you’ll have to pay for the temporary use of absolutely everything. Nothing will actually belong to you. All items and resources are to be used by the collective, while actual ownership is restricted to an upper stratum of social class.

Just how will this imposed serfdom make you happy? Again, the unstated implication is that lack of ownership is a marvelous convenience. Rent a pot and then return it. You don’t need storage space! Imagine the freedom! They even promise the convenience of automatic drone delivery straight to your door.

Artificial intelligence — which is siphoning your data about every aspect of your existence through nearly every piece of technology and appliance you own — will run your life, predicting your every mood and desire, catering to your every whim. Ah, the luxury of not having to make any decisions!

Life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom. ~ Aldous Huxley
This is the mindset they’re trying to program into you, and for most, it appears to be working. For others who can see the propaganda for what it is, these promises look and feel like proverbial mouse traps. Once you bite the cheese, you’ll be stuck, robbed of your freedom forevermore. And, as Huxley told Wallace, individual freedom is really a prerequisite for a genuinely productive society:

“Life of man is ultimately impossible without a considerable measure of individual freedom. Initiative and creativity — all these things that we value, and I think value properly, are impossible without a large measure of freedom.”

When Wallace challenges Huxley on this by pointing out that the Soviet Union was successfully developing both militarily and artistically, despite being a tightly controlled regime, Huxley counters by saying that those doing that creative work, especially scientists, were also granted far greater personal freedom and prosperity than everyone else.

As long as they kept their noses out of politics, they were brought into the upper echelon and given a great deal of freedom, and without this freedom, they would not have been able to be as creative and inventive, Huxley says.

The Threat of the New Normal

This anti-human “new normal” that world leaders are now urging us to accept and embrace is the trap of all traps. Unless your most cherished dream is to lie in bed for the rest of your life, your body atrophying away, with a pair of VR goggles permanently strapped to your face, you must resist and oppose the “new normal” every day going forward.

As noted by Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill in his February 5, 2021, article,3 while the first lockdown was marked by a sense of camaraderie and the promise of it being a temporary measure that we can get through if we just address the problem together, by the third round, all forms of social connection have vanished, as has the anticipation of a return to normality.

“In the first lockdown, the dream of normality was what kept people going; it was actively encouraged by some politicians and even some in the doom-laden media. This time, dreams of normality are treated as ‘dysfunction’, as a species of ‘denial,’” O’Neill writes.

Make no mistake. The media’s rebuke of a return to normalcy as a nonsensical piped ream is dangerous propaganda territory. The reality is we could easily open everything back up and go back to business as usual, and nothing out of the ordinary, in terms of sickness and death, would occur.

People die every year. It’s an inevitable reality of life and, up until the last two weeks of 2020, there actually were no greater number of deaths recorded than the year prior, and the year prior to that, and the one before that.4

While new numbers released by the CDC indicate that 2020’s final two weeks may have pushed the total deaths beyond 2019’s (final data won’t be available for months),5 COVID-19 simply isn’t as lethal as initially suspected. It primarily kills the elderly and the chronically ill — what’s most interesting is that suicide deaths among teens went up dramatically as lockdowns and school closings dragged on.6,7

What’s more, we now have effective prophylactics and treatments that ensure the loss of life due to COVID-19 can be radically minimized. Yet, our leaders don’t want you to think in those terms. They want you to remain fearful because they have a deep appreciation of the value of fear in catalyzing the precise type of capitulation and surrender they need in order to implement the Great Reset.

Tragically, many citizens have so embraced the fear culture, they don’t even need an authoritarian figure to tell them to comply with rules that have no medical benefit anymore. They’ll happily act as the designated COVID police, making sure everyone around them complies.

Hell hath no fury like one caught in the unsound belief that they will die if you don’t wear a mask. This is no way to live. It’s not sane and it’s not healthy, and the prophetic works of Huxley and Orwell illustrate where it will all end if we don’t push back.

Never Surrender to the New Normal

In closing, I’d like you to ponder some portions from O’Neill’s article, in which he warns us about the threat posed by the culture of fear itself, which is just as dangerous and damaging as any virus:8

“[Spiked] argued that Covid-19 … would be refracted through the culture of fear, potentially harming our ability to understand and deal with this novel danger. This has come to pass. The shift from paying lip service to social solidarity to encouraging the populace to think of itself as diseased represents a victory for the degraded view of humanity gifted to us by the culture of fear.

The government’s early move from encouraging people to take responsibility for limiting their social interactions to using older methods of terror to ensure compliance with lockdown measures confirmed the culture of fear’s reduction of people from citizens to be engaged with to problems to be managed.

The failure to sustain the education of the next generation spoke to the exhaustion of bourgeois confidence, of the state itself, that underpins the culture of fear.

And the current threat of a New Normal — of a forever post-pandemic dystopia of distanced, masked pseudo-interaction — demonstrates that our future will be shaped at least in part by the ideologies and forces of the culture of fear …

Yes, the New Normal being talked up by the political and cultural elites will partially be informed by the experience of Covid-19 and the necessity of being prepared for a future virus. But it will also be shaped by … the culture of fear and its attendant anti-human, anti-progress ideologies …

Soon the practical task of minimizing and managing the impact of Covid-19 will have been largely completed, leaving us with the far larger humanist task of combating this culture and making the case for a freer, more dynamic, dazzling future of growth, knowledge and engagement.

Those who underestimate the culture of fear will be ill-prepared for these future battles. They will have a tendency to surrender to the New Normal. The rest of us should stand firm, even in the face of smears and willful misrepresentations, and continue to recognize and confront the real and debilitating consequences that fear has on everyday life and on humanity’s future.”
— Read on articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/02/20/brave-new-world.aspx