Saturday, June 26, 2021

Report: United States Ranks Last In Media Trust


For years, we have been discussing the decline of journalism values with the rise of open bias in the media. Now, a newly released report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has found something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media. The most tragic aspect is that it does not matter. The media has embraced the advocacy journalism and anyone questioning that trend risks instant cancellation. The result is a type of state media where journalists are bound to the government by ideology rather than law.

The plunging level of trust reflects the loss of the premier news organizations to a type of woke journalism. We have have been discussing how writerseditorscommentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.

Likewise, the University of North Carolina recently offered an academic chair in Journalism to New York Times’ Nikole Hannah-Jones. While Hannah-Jones was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for her writing on The 1619 Project, she has been criticized for her role in purging dissenting views from the New York Times pages and embracing absurd anti-police conspiracy theories. Even waiting for the facts is viewed as unethical today by journalism professors who demand that reporters make political or social declarations through their coverage.

One of the lowest moments came with the New York Times’ mea culpa for publishing an opinion column by a conservative senator. The New York Times was denounced by many of us for its cringing apology after publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.). and promising not to publish future such columns. It will not publish a column from a Republican senator on protests in the United States but it will publish columns from one of the Chinese leaders crushing protests for freedom in Hong Kong. Cotton was arguing that the use of national guard troops may be necessary to quell violent riots, noting the historical use of this option in past protests. This option was used most recently after the Capitol riot.

Almost on the one-year anniversary of its condemning its own publication of Cotton (and forcing out its own editor), the New York Times published an academic columnist who previously defended the killing of conservative protesters. Over at the Washington Post this week, the newspaper promoted a columnist, Karen Attiah, who last summer caused an outrage after she tweeted “White women are lucky that we are just calling them Karens. And not calling for revenge.”

Given this trend, it is little surprise that viewers no longer trust the media. They have watched as stories ranging from Hunter Biden to the origins of the pandemic have been aggressively censored by Big Tech and blacked out by journalists. The problem is that this echo journalism works for some in the media even if it ultimately destroys the profession as a whole. It is a journalistic version of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons where everyone acts for their immediate benefit as “the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.”

Reprinted with permission from


Friday, June 25, 2021

Surgeon Fired From College Of Medicine For Voicing Concerns About COVID Shots For Kids

Surgeon Fired From College Of Medicine For Voicing Concerns About COVID Shots For Kids

Via The Justice Center For Constitutional Freedom,

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms represents Dr. Francis Christian, Clinical Professor of General Surgery at the University of Saskatchewan and a practising surgeon in Saskatoon.

Dr. Christian was called into a meeting today, suspended from all teaching responsibilities effective immediately, and fired from his position with the University of Saskatchewan as of September 2021.

There is a recording of Dr. Christian’s meeting today between Dr. Christian and Dr. Preston Smith, the Dean of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan, College of Medicine, Dr. Susan Shaw, the Chief Medical Officer of the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and Dr. Brian Ulmer, Head of the Department of Surgery at the Saskatchewan College of Medicine.

In addition, the Justice Centre will represent Dr. Christian in his defence of a complaint that was made against him and an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The complaint objects to Dr. Christian having advocated for the informed consent of Covid vaccines for children.

Dr. Christian has been a surgeon for more than 20 years and began working in Saskatoon in 2007. He was appointed Director of the Surgical Humanities Program and Director of Quality and Patient Safety in 2018 and co-founded the Surgical Humanities Program. Dr. Christian is also the Editor of the Journal of The Surgical Humanities.

On June 17, Dr. Christian released a statement to over 200 doctors which contained his concerns regarding giving the Covid shots to children. In it he noted that he is pro-vaccine, and that he did not represent any group, the Saskatchewan Health Authority, or the University of Saskatchewan.

“I speak to you directly as a physician, a surgeon, and a fellow human being.”

Dr. Christian noted that the principle of informed consent was sacrosanct and noted that a patient should always be “fully aware of the risks of the medical intervention, the benefits of the intervention, and if any alternatives exist to the intervention.”

“This should apply particularly to a new vaccine that has never before been tried in humans… before the vaccine is rolled out to children, both children and parents must know the risks of m-RNA vaccines,” he wrote.

Dr. Christian expressed concern that he had not come across “a single vaccinated child or parent who has been adequately informed” about Covid vaccines for children.

Among his points, he stated that:

  1. The m-RNA vaccine, is a new, experimental vaccine never used by humans before.

  2. The m-RNA vaccines have not been fully authorized by Health Canada or the US CDC, and are in fact under “interim authorization” in Canada and “emergency use authorization” in the US. He noted that “full vaccine approval takes several years and multiple safety considerations – this has not happened.”

  3. That in order to qualify for “emergency use authorization” there must be an emergency. While he said there is a strong case for vaccinating the elderly, the vulnerable and health care workers, he said, “Covid does not pose a threat to our kids. The risk of them dying of Covid is less than 0.003% – this is even less than the risk of them dying of the flu. There is no emergency in children.”

  4. Children do not readily transmit the Covid virus to adults.

  5. M-RNA vaccines have been “associated with several thousand deaths” in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System in the US. “These appear to be unusual, compared to the total number of vaccines administered.” He called it a “strong signal that should not be ignored.”

  6. He noted that vaccines have already caused “serious medical problems for kids” worldwide, including “a real and significantly increased risk” of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart. Dr. Christian notes the German national vaccine agency and the UK vaccine agency are not recommending the vaccine for healthy children and teenagers.

The Saskatchewan Health Authority/College of Medicine wrote a letter to Dr. Christian on June 21, 2021, alleging that they had “received information that you are engaging in activities designed to discourage and prevent children and adolescents from receiving Covid-19 vaccination contrary to the recommendations and pandemic-response efforts of Saskatchewan and Canadian public health authorities.”

Dr. Christian’s concerns regarding underage Covid vaccinations are not isolated to him.  The US Centre for Disease Control had an “emergency meeting” today to discuss the growing cases of myocarditis (heart inflammation) in younger males after receiving the Covid-19 vaccines.

The CDC released new data today that the risk of myocarditis after the Pfizer vaccine is at least 10 times the expected rate in 12 – 17 year old males and females. The German government has issued public guidance against vaccinating those under the age of 18.

The World Health Organization posted an update to its website on Monday, June 21, which contained the statement in respect of advice for Covid-19 vaccination that “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” Within 24 hours, this guidance was withdrawn and new guidance was posted which stated that “Covid vaccines are safe for those over 18 years of age.”

Dr. Christian says there is a large, growing “network of ethical, moral physicians and scientists” who are urging caution in recommending vaccines for all children without informed consent. He said, physicians must “always put their patients and humanity first.”

Dr. Byram Bridle, a prominent immunologist at the University of Guelph with a sub-speciality in vaccinology, recently participated in a Press Conference on Parliament Hill on CPAC organized by MP Derek Sloan, where he discussed the censorship of scientists and physicians. Dr. Bridle expressed his safety concerns with vaccinating children with experimental MRNA vaccines.

Justice Centre Litigation Director Jay Cameron also has concern over the growing censorship of medical professionals when it comes to questioning the government narrative on Covid.

“We are seeing a clear pattern of highly competent and skilled medical doctors in very esteemed positions being taken down and censored or even fired, for practicing proper science and medicine,” says Mr. Cameron.

The Justice Centre represented Dr. Chris Milburn in Nova Scotia, who faced professional disciplinary proceedings last year after a group of activists took exception to an opinion column he wrote in a local paper. The Justice Centre provided submissions to the College on Dr. Milburn’s behalf, defending the right of physicians to express their opinions on matters of policy in the public square and arguing that everyone is entitled to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – including doctors. The Justice Centre noted that attempting to have a doctor professionally disciplined for his opinions and commentary on matters of public interest amounts to bullying and intimidation for speaking out against the government.

Last week, Dr. Milburn also faced punishment for speaking out with his concerns about public health policies, as he was removed from his position as the Head of Emergency for the eastern zone with the Nova Scotia Health Authority. In an unusual twist, a petition has been started to have Dr. Milburn replace Dr. Strang as the province’s Chief Medical Officer.

“Censoring and punishing scientists and doctors for freely voicing their concerns is arrogant, oppressive and profoundly unscientific”, states Mr. Cameron.

“Both the western world and the idea of scientific inquiry itself is built to a large extent on the principles of freedom of thought and speech. Medicine and patient safety can only regress when dogma and an elitist orthodoxy, such as that imposed by the Saskatchewan College of Medicine, punishes doctors for voicing concerns,” Mr. Cameron concludes.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/25/2021 - 20:20


Google Search won't show results for changing quickly topics

Google has trained Search to “detect when a topic is rapidly evolving” and will now display a “changing quickly” notice when a “range of sources hasn’t yet weighed in.” It comes as information around breaking or emerging news “may not be the most reliable.


What is Behind Gen. Mark Milley's Righteous Race Sermon? Look to the New Domestic War on Terror.

For two hundred forty years, American generals have not exactly been defined by adamant public advocacy for left-wing cultural dogma. Yet there appeared to be a great awakening at the Pentagon on Wednesday when Gen. Mark Milley, the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S.


Study: Fewer Cases of Autism, Allergies in Unvaccinated Children



A peer-reviewed study published this month in the Journal of Translational Science found children who were fully or partially vaccinated were diagnosed with autism, severe allergies, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, recurring ear infections and ADD/ADHD more often than children who were completely unvaccinated.

The study also showed there was a protective effect against these disorders when children were unvaccinated and breastfed for a minimum of six months, or unvaccinated and born vaginally.

The study, “Health Effects in Vaccinated Versus Unvaccinated Children, With Covariates for Breastfeeding Status and Type of Birth,” is based on a cohort of 1,565 children from three medical practices in the U.S.

Within the three practices, parents completed questionnaires based on their children’s vaccination status and health. Results of questionnaires were confirmed using chart records from each practice.

According to the study:

“The findings in this study must be weighed against the strengths and limitations of the available data and study design. Additional research utilizing a larger sample from diverse medical practices will yield greater certainty in results, essential to understanding the full scope of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.”

The research adds to a growing body of literature demonstrating that unvaccinated children are healthier. Similar studies have been published previously by Hooker and Miller (2020), Lyons-Weiler and Thomas (2021) and Mawson et al. (2017).

“This study provides another very important piece of evidence regarding the overall health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children,” said co-author Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University.

“It is imperative that health officials take this research seriously for the best protection of children in the U.S. and worldwide,” Hooker said.

Hooker said that given the study’s results, “it is imperative” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention opens up its own Vaccine Safety Datalink to independent researchers so additional study on the effect of the entire infant/child vaccination schedule may be ascertained.

Neil Z. Miller, a medical research journalist, director of the ThinkTwice Global Vaccine Institute, co-authored the study with Hooker.

The post Study: Fewer Cases of Autism, Allergies in Unvaccinated Children appeared first on Children's Health Defense.


Narrative Soup


Clusterfuck Nation
For your reading pleasure Mondays and Fridays

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page

And thanks to all my Patrons for your support!

A major premise of my 2005 book, The Long Emergency, was that government at the highest level would become increasingly ineffectual and impotent as the melodrama of national collapse plays out. So, there was no small irony that the floundering political elites would settle on the pathetic figure of “Joe Biden” to symbolically head a foundering government. They picked the very embodiment of collapse to usher in collapse, and that is why “Joe Biden” appears to be nothing more than an usher, somebody whose only duty, say, at a funeral, is to show the more important attendees to their places before the ominous casket.

Nobody believes that he is in charge of the executive branch, or even in charge of himself, as he shuffles stiffly out to the podium with eyes gone all slitty to do the one thing his minders have trained him to do: read a teleprompter. Surely the leaders over in Europe were uncomfortably bemused by his recent appearance among them, as if the USA sent a ghost from the bygone 20th century to spook our allies into mindfulness of self-preservation — message: the great power that rescued you in two world wars is gone, and you are on your own now.

The collapse is universal, though, playing out globally in different flavors of culture and economy, but well underway, for Europe, too, and eventually even China. It’s a collapse of modernity and the techno-industrial horse it rode in on. The extreme political narcissists of the day, intoxicated with messianic fantasies, would like to retail a Great Reset in a desperate effort to prevent modernity from becoming yesterday’s tomorrow. But it only seems to amount to an obsessive-compulsive wish to push everybody around and herd populations into controllable corrals that, some suspect, are just a prelude to a not-far-off global Auschwitz. “You will own nothing and you will be happy” is about as reassuring as “work will make you free.”

The USA, with its more anarchic ethos, can only offer laughable rationales for its failures on the disorderly way to bankruptcy and breakdown. Naturally, the folks in-charge are terrified of any challenge to their unconvincing rule. The election audit underway in Arizona is driving them up a tree. The latest desperate gambit is the New York State court system’s move to suspend Rudy Giuliani’s law license as a sort of warning to anyone else who would try to cast doubt on the ironclad rectitude of the recent election.

The New York court’s Attorney Grievance Committee states:

….there is uncontroverted evidence that the respondent [Giuliani] communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to the courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as a lawyer for former president Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump’s failed effort at reelection in 2020.  These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that, due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 presidential election was stolen from his client.”

Notice the assertion that contesting the vote is necessarily proscribed, and that any argument to that end is in the service of an false “narrative,” which is necessarily inadmissible. Since when is it against the rules to have a point-of-view? Especially a legal point-of-view about legal matters, in courts of law and in the public arena? Now, it happens that a number of state courts dismissed cases brought by Mr. Giuliani, without bothering to entertain any evidence, most particularly affidavits Mr. Giuliani proffered detailing voting irregularities. The courts didn’t want to hear it. If that is proof of anything, it may only be of corruption in the state courts. Has anyone noticed that the grievance committee is manufacturing a narrative of its own, very possibly a false one?

In fact, there is one legal review of the 2020 balloting currently underway in Arizona, at the order of the Arizona State Senate, as it should be because, according to the US constitution, elections are a prerogative of the fifty states’ legislatures. It’s not “a narrative.” It’s as official as can be, and they have every right to do it, and there’s a fair chance that it will uncover both ballot fraud and voting machine fraud. I suppose all that seems “baseless” if you refuse to look. Also, this week a judge in Georgia approved a process to unseal roughly 145,000 mail-in ballots in Fulton County (the Atlanta metro region) to inspect them for fraud. The ruling stems from a lawsuit against the county that alleges evidence of fraudulent ballots and improper counting. “Joe Biden” won the state by a mere 12,000 votes.

Other states, notably Pennsylvania, are taking action toward their own 2020 vote audits, and through the proper legislative channels. The “incontrovertible evidence” of a fair and honest election is the fraud at issue. There are only assertions that it would be wrong to even look for it, and it’s hard to imagine a weaker argument. So, the politburo behind “Joe Biden” is running scared. The New York court’s action against Mr. Giuliani is just a peevish act of political desperation aimed at disabling a legal adversary. That and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s threat to shut down the Arizona audit on specious “civil rights” grounds, are just attempts to create distractions for a regime that begins to apprehend it is whirling around the drain.

As “Joe Biden” fades altogether from the scene, the country will have to grapple with the real problems it faces, not hobgoblins of racism, misogyny, white supremacy but how to cope with a dwindling energy supply and a falling standard of living, and how to remain civilized. We’re doing a good job of destroying the institutions that make civilization possible, especially law and the courts.

This blog is sponsored this week by Vaulted, an online mobile web app for investing in allocated and deliverable physical gold. To learn more visit:

Support this blog by visiting Jim’s Patreon Page


The "Conspiracy Theory" Charade

The "Conspiracy Theory" Charade

Authored by James Bovard via,

How government and media use the phrase to suppress opposition...

Biden’s “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” report last week declared that “enhancing faith in American democracy” requires “finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories.” In recent decades, conspiracy theories have multiplied almost as fast as government lies and cover-ups. While many allegations have been ludicrously far-fetched, the political establishment and media routinely attach the “conspiracy theory” label to any challenge to their dominance.

According to Cass Sunstein, Harvard Law professor and Obama’s regulatory czar, a conspiracy theory is “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Reasonable citizens are supposed to presume that government creates trillions of pages of new secrets each year for their own good, not to hide anything from the public.  

In the early 1960s, conspiracy theories were practically a non-issue because 75 percent of Americans trusted the federal government. Such credulity did not survive the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Seven days after Kennedy was shot on November 22, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson created a commission (later known as the Warren Commission) to suppress controversy about the killing. Johnson and FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover browbeat the commission members into speedily issuing a report rubberstamping the “crazed lone gunman” version of the assassination. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford, a member of the commission, revised the final staff report to change the location of where the bullet entered Kennedy’s body, thereby salvaging Hoover’s so-called “magic bullet” theory. After the Warren Commission findings were ridiculed as a whitewash, Johnson ordered the FBI to conduct wiretaps on the report’s critics. To protect the official story, the commission sealed key records for 75 years. Truth would out only after all the people involved in any coverup had gotten their pensions and died.

The controversy surrounding the Warren Commission spurred the CIA to formally attack the notion of conspiracy theories. In a 1967 alert to its overseas stations and bases, the CIA declared that the fact that almost half of Americans did not believe Oswald acted alone “is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization” and endangers “the whole reputation of the American government.” The memo instructed recipients to “employ propaganda assets” and exploit “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out… parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” The ultimate proof of the government’s innocence: “Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.”

However, the CIA did conceal a wide range of assassinations and foreign coups it conducted until congressional investigations in the mid-1970s blew the whistle. The New York Times, which exposed the CIA memo in 1977, noted that the CIA “mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.” According to historian Lance deHaven-Smith, author of Conspiracy Theory in America, “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited…with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” (In 2014, the CIA released a heavily-redacted report admitting that it had been “complicit” in a JFK “cover-up” by withholding “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission.)

The Johnson administration also sought to portray critics of its Vietnam War policies as conspiracy nuts, at least when they were not portraying them as communist stooges. During 1968 Senate hearings on the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara denounced the “monstrous insinuations” that the U.S. had sought to provoke a North Vietnamese attack and declared that it is “inconceivable that anyone even remotely familiar with our society and system of government could suspect the existence of a conspiracy” to take the nation to war on false pretenses. Three years later, the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers demolished the credibility of McNamara and other top Johnson administration officials who indeed dragged America into the Vietnam War on false pretenses.

Condemnations of conspiracy theories became a hallmark of the Clinton administration. In 1995, President Bill Clinton claimed that people who believed government threatened their constitutional right were deranged ingrates: “If you say that Government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong…. How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes!” The same year, the White House compiled a fevered 331-page report entitled “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,” attacking magazines, think tanks, and others that had criticized President Clinton. In the following years, many of the organizations condemned in the White House report were targeted for IRS audits, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Spectator magazine and almost a dozen individual high-profile Clinton accusers, including Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers. Despite Clinton’s protestations that he posed no threat to freedom, even the ACLU admitted in 1998 that the Clinton administration had “engaged in surreptitious surveillance, such as wiretapping, on a far greater scale than ever before… The Administration is using scare tactics to acquire vast new powers to spy on all Americans.”

Some “conspiracy theory” allegations comically expose the naivete of official scorekeepers. In April 2016, Chapman University surveyed Americans and announced that “the most prevalent conspiracy theory in the United States is that the government is concealing information about the 9/11 attacks with slightly over half of Americans holding that belief.”  That survey did not ask whether people believed the World Trade Centers were blown up by an inside job or whether President George W. Bush secretly masterminded the attacks. Instead, folks were simply asked whether “government is concealing information” about the attacks. Only a village idiot, college professor, or editorial writer would presume the government had come clean. Three months after the Chapman University survey was conducted, the Obama administration finally released 28 pages of a 2003 congressional report that revealed that Saudi government officials had directly financed some of the 9/11 hijackers in America. That disclosure shattered the storyline carefully constructed by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission, and legions of media accomplices. (Lawsuits continue in federal court seeking to force the U.S. government to disclose more information regarding the Saudi government role in the attacks.)

“Conspiracy theory” is often a flag of convenience for the media. In 2018, the New York Times asserted that Trump’s use of the term “Deep State” and similar rhetoric “fanned fears that he is eroding public trust in institutions, undermining the idea of objective truth and sowing widespread suspicions about the government and news media.” However, after allegations by anonymous government officials spurred Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, New York Times columnist James Stewart cheered, “There is a Deep State, there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law… They work for the American people.” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle proclaimed, “The deep state is alive and well” and hailed it as “a collection of patriotic public servants.” Almost immediately after its existence was no longer denied, the Deep State became the incarnation of virtue in Washington.

The media elite can fabricate “conspiracy theory” designations almost with the flip of a headline. A week after Election Day 2020, the New York Times ran a banner headline across the top of the front page: “Election Officials Nationwide Find No Fraud.” How did the Times know? Their reporters effectively called each state and asked, “Did y’all see any fraud?” Election officials answered “no,” thus proving that anyone who subsequently questioned Biden’s victory was promoting a groundless conspiracy. While top liberal politicians denounced electronic voting companies as unaccountable and dishonest in 2019, any doubts about such companies became “conspiracies” after that headline in the Times. The Times helped spur a media cacophony drowning out anyone complaining about ballot harvesting, illegal mass mailing of absentee ballots, or widespread failures to verify voter identification.

Actually, “conspiracy theory” accusations helped Biden win the 2020 presidential election. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently noted, if Americans believed that the COVID-19 virus was created in a Chinese government lab, Trump would have likely won the election because voters would have sought a leader who could be tough on China. But the lab origin explanation was quickly labeled a pro-Trump heresy. The Washington Post denounced Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR,) for suggesting the virus originated in the lab, which supposedly was a “conspiracy theory that was already debunked.” Twenty-seven prominent scientists signed a letter in the Lancet: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin… Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.” The Lancet did not reveal until last week that one of the signers and the person who organized the letter signing campaign ran an organization that received U.S. government subsidies for its work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab. President Biden has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to take another look to seek to determine the origin of COVID-19.

Will “conspiracy theory” charges provide a “get out of jail free” card for the FBI and other federal agencies regarding the January 6 clash at the Capitol? After Fox News’s Tucker Carlson featured allegations that FBI informants or agents may have instigated the ruckus, the Washington Post speedily denounced his “wild, baseless theory” while Huffington Post denounced his “laughable conspiracy theory.” It doesn’t matter how often the FBI instigated terrorist plots or political violence in the past 60 years (including the plot to kidnap the Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer last November). Instead, decent people must do nothing to endanger the official narrative of Jan. 6 as a horrific private terrorist event on par with the War of 1812, Pearl Harbor, and the 9/11 attacks.

“Conspiracy theory” is a magic phrase that expunges all previous federal abuses. Many liberals who invoke the phrase also ritually quote a 1965 book by former communist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Hofstadter portrayed distrust of government as a proxy for mental illness, a paradigm that makes the character of critics more important than the conduct of government agencies. For Hofstadter, it was a self-evident truth that government was trustworthy because American politics had “a kind of professional code… embodying the practical wisdom of generations of politicians.”

 Much of the establishment rage at “conspiracy theories” has been driven by the notion that rulers are entitled intellectual passive obedience. The same lese-majeste mindset has been widely adopted to make a muddle of American history. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the court historian for President John F. Kennedy and a revered liberal intellectual, declared in a 2004 article in Playboy, “Historians today conclude that the colonists were driven to revolt in 1776 because of a false conviction that they faced a British conspiracy to destroy their freedom.” Was the British imposition of martial law, confiscation of firearms, military blockades, suspension of habeas corpus, and censorship simply a deranged fantasy of Thomas Jefferson? The notion that the British would never conspire to destroy freedom would play poorly in Dublin. Why would anyone trust academics who were blind to British threats in the 1770s to accurately judge contemporary perils to liberty?

How does the Biden administration intend to fight “conspiracy theories”? The Biden terrorism report called for “enhancing faith in government” by “accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.” Will Biden’s team rely on the “solution” suggested by Cass Sunstein: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” by government agents and informants to “undermine” them from within? A 1976 Senate report on the FBI COINTELPRO program demanded assurances that a federal agency would never again “be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order.” Actually, the FBI and other agencies have continued secretly warring against “threats” and legions of informants are likely busy “cognitively infiltrating” at this moment.

“Conspiracy theory” will remain a favorite sneer of the political-media elite. There is no substitute for Americans developing better B.S radars for government claims as well as wild-eyed private balderdash. In the meantime, there’s always the remedy a Washington Post health article touted late last year: “Try guided imagery. Visualizing positive outcomes can help clamp down on the intense emotions that might make you more vulnerable to harmful conspiracy theories.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/25/2021 - 00:05


OF COURSE: Biden Will Keep Permanent Troop Presence in Afghanistan After Phony ‘Withdrawal’


The Biden administration has announced they will keep a permanent troop presence in Afghanistan after the so-called withdrawal on Sept. 11 of this year.

U.S. officials told The Associated Press anonymously that at least 650 troops will remain in Afghanistan after the fake withdrawal takes place. Of course, that 650 troop number is likely much higher, like it was in Syria after former president Donald Trump allegedly withdrew the vast majority of troops from that country.

There is a propaganda drive currently going in the Western media that the weak Afghan government will collapse after U.S. troops are removed from the country.

“It is a dynamic situation,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Tuesday. “If there need to be changes made to the pace or to the scope and scale of the retrograde on any given day or in any given week, we want to maintain the flexibility to do that.”

Deborah Lyons, who serves as the United Nations special representative for Afghanistan, said that “most districts that have been taken surround provincial capitals, suggesting that the Taliban are positioning themselves to try and take these capitals once foreign forces are fully withdrawn.”

These are excuses that could be used by the military-industrial complex to justify a continued U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, and Biden’s history of warmongering makes him an easy mark for such manipulations.

Liberty Conservative News has reported on Biden’s record of being the consummate empire politician, which is why he was promoted to the presidency despite being a decrepit and embarrassing shell of his former self:

A new documentary released by The Intercept highlights the record of President-imposed Joe Biden, calling him the consummate “empire politician.”

The documentary takes Biden from his early opposition to the Vietnam War, which he betrayed to later become a globalist warmonger. Researcher Jeremy Scahill noted that Biden jettisoned his morals and became a full-blown swamp creature in the 1980s.

In the 1980s, Biden supported military incursions in Grenada, Libya and Panama. The turning point into belligerent hawkishness seemed to come in 1991 when Biden said he was “proven to be wrong” in his opposition to the Gulf War. From this point on, Biden supported basically every foreign military intervention pushed by Democrats and/or Republicans.

Biden supported former president Bill Clinton’s crippling economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s and a bombing campaign that Scahill describes as the “longest sustained U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam.” He also supported Clinton’s military interventions into Bosnia, his bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan, NATO’s bombing of Serbia and Montenegro, and clandestine operations in Colombia.

When the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks happened, Biden kicked his pro-militarism stance into an even higher gear. He took credit for many of the worst provisions of the Patriot Act and authorized torture at Guantanamo Bay. He also supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a potential coup in Venezuela, and the wholesale killing of innocents in Gaza…

Biden’s criminal behavior did not end when he left the U.S. Senate and became the vice president under Barack Hussein Obama. Obama had Biden handle essential tasks, such as making sure that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was sufficiently punished for exposing illegal federal spying.

Liberals will celebrate Biden’s anti-war achievement in Afghanistan even while it is completely pyrrhic. Endless war will continue in the Middle East until this dried up husk of a man is carried out of the White House.

The post OF COURSE: Biden Will Keep Permanent Troop Presence in Afghanistan After Phony ‘Withdrawal’ appeared first on Liberty Conservative News.


Thursday, June 24, 2021

Behind the Vaccine Veil: Doctor cites ‘whistleblowers’ inside CDC who claim injections have already killed 50,000 Americans

The most highly cited physician on the early treatment of COVID-19 has come out with an explosive new video that blows the lid off the medical establishment’s complicity in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Dr.


U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Student on Regulation of Off-Campus Speech

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment when it punished a student for her vulgar message on Snapchat expressing frustration about school.


It Always Ends The Same Way: Crisis, Crash, Collapse

Risk has not been extinguished, it is expanding geometrically beneath the false stability of a monstrously manipulated market.

One of the most under-appreciated investment insights is courtesy of Mike Tyson: "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." At this moment in history, the plan of most market participants is to place their full faith and trust in the status quo's ability to keep asset prices lofting ever higher, essentially forever.

In other words, the vast majority of punters are convinced they will never suffer the indignity of getting punched in the mouth by a market crash. What makes this confidence so interesting is massively distorted markets always end the same way: crisis, crash and collapse.

The core dynamic here is distorted markets provide false feedback and misleading information which then lead to participants making catastrophically misguided decisions. Investment decisions made on poor information will also be poor, leading participants to end up poor, to their very great surprise.

The surprise comes from the falsity of the feedback, as those who are distorting markets want punters to believe "the market" is functioning transparently. If you're manipulating the market, the last thing you want is for the unwary marks to discover that the market is generating false signals and misleading information on risk, as knowing the market is being distorted would alert them to the extraordinary risks intrinsic to heavily distorted markets.

The risks arise from the disconnect between the precariousness of the manipulated market and the extreme confidence punters have in its stability and predictability. The predictability comes not from transparent feedback and market signals but from the manipulation. This stability is entirely fabricated and therefore it lacks the dynamic stability of truly open markets.

Markets that are being distorted/manipulated to achieve a goal that is impossible in truly open markets--for example, markets that only loft higher with near-zero volatility--lull participants into a dangerous perception that because markets are so stable, risk has dissipated.

In actuality, risk is skyrocketing beneath the surface of the artificial stability because the market has been stripped of the mechanisms of dynamic stability. This artificial stability derived from sustained manipulation has the superficial appearance of low-risk markets, i.e., low levels of volatility, but this lack of volatility derives not from transparency but from behind-the-scenes suppression of volatility.

Another source of risk in distorted markets is the illusion of liquidity: in low-volume markets of suppressed volatility, participants are encouraged to believe that they can buy and sell whatever securities they want in whatever volumes they want without disturbing market pricing and liquidity. In other words, participants are led to believe that the market will always have a bid due to the near-infinite depth of liquidity: no matter how many billions of dollars of securities you want to sell, there will always be a bid for your shares.

In actual fact, the bid is paper-thin and it vanishes altogether once selling rises above very low levels. Heavily manipulated markets are exquisitely sensitive to selling because the entire point is to limit any urge to sell while encouraging the greed to increase gains by buying more.

The illusions of low risk, essentially guaranteed gains for those who increase their positions and near-infinite liquidity generate overwhelming incentives to borrow more and leverage it to the hilt to maximize gains. The blissfully delusional punter feels the decision to borrow the maximum available and leverage it to the maximum is entirely rational due to the "obvious" absence of risk, the "obvious" guaranteed gains offered by markets lofting ever higher like clockwork and the "obvious" abundance of liquidity, assuring the punter they can always sell their entire position at today's prices and lock in profits at any time.

On top of all these grossly misleading distortions, punters have been encouraged to believe in the ultimate distortion: the Federal Reserve will never let markets decline again, ever.This is the perfection of moral hazard: risk has been disconnected from consequence.

In this perfection of moral hazard, punters consider it entirely rational to increase extremely risky speculative bets because the Federal Reserve will never let markets decline.Given the abundant evidence behind this assumption, it would be irrational not to ramp up crazy-risky speculative bets to the maximum because losses are now impossible thanks to the Fed's implicit promise to never let markets drop.

This is why distorted, manipulated markets always end the same way: first, in an unexpected emergence of risk, which was presumed to be banished; second, a market crash as the paper-thin bid disappears and prices flash-crash to levels that wipe out all those forced to sell by margin calls, and then the collapse of faith in the manipulators (the Fed), collapse of the collateral supporting trillions of dollars in highly leveraged debt and then the collapse of the entire delusion-based financial system.

Gordon Long and I illuminate the many layers of distortion, manipulation and moral hazard in our new video presentation, It Always Ends The Same Way (34:33). Amidst the ruins generated by well-meaning manipulation and distortion, the "well meaning" part will leave an extremely long-lasting bitter taste in all those who failed to differentiate between the false signals and distorted information of manipulated markets and the trustworthy transparency of signals arising in truly open markets.

In summary: risk has not been extinguished, it is expanding geometrically beneath the false stability of a monstrously manipulated market. As I often note here, risk cannot be extinguished, it can only be transferred. By distorting markets to create an illusion of low-risk stability, the Federal Reserve has transferred this fatal supernova of risk to the entire financial system.




If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via

My new book is available!A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet 20% and 15% discounts (Kindle $7, print $17, audiobook now available $17.46)

Read excerpts of the book for free (PDF).

The Story Behind the Book and the Introduction.

Recent Videos/Podcasts:

It Always Ends The Same Way (34:33) (with Gordon Long)

My COVID-19 Pandemic Posts

My recent books:

A Hacker's Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World
(Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), (audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake$1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print)Read the first section for free (PDF).

Become a $1/month patron of my work via

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Joy U. ($5/month), for your exceedingly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, Jim S. ($10/month), for your outrageously generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Go to my main site at for the full posts and archives.


Bovard: The Deep State Defeat Of Donald Trump

Bovard: The Deep State Defeat Of Donald Trump

Authored by James Bovard via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

“The Trump–Deep State clash is a showdown between a presidency that is far too powerful versus federal agencies that have become fiefdoms with immunity for almost any and all abuses,” I wrote in an FFF article a year ago.

Since then, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by fewer than 50,000 votes in a handful of swing states that determined the Electoral College result.  There were numerous issues that could drive that relatively small number of votes. But machinations by the Deep State probably cost Trump far more votes than it took to seal his loss.

“The Deep State” commonly refers to officials who secretly wield power permanently in Washington, often in federal agencies with vast sway and little accountability. During Trump’s first impeachment, the establishment media exalted the Deep State. New York Times columnist James Stewart assured readers that the secretive agencies “work for the American people,” New York Times editorial writer Michelle Cottle hailed the Deep State as “a collection of patriotic public servants,” and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson captured the Beltway’s verdict:

“God bless the Deep State!”

The first three years of Trump’s presidency were haunted by constant accusations that he had colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. The FBI launched its investigation on the basis of ludicrous allegations from a dossier financed by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. FBI officials deceived the FISA Court to authorize surveilling the Trump campaign. A FISA warrant is the nuclear bomb of searches, authorizing the FBI “to conduct simultaneous telephone, microphone, cell phone, e-mail and computer surveillance of the U.S. person target’s home, workplace and vehicles,” as well as “physical searches of the target’s residence, office, vehicles, computer, safe deposit box and U.S. mails,” as a FISA court decision noted. The FISA court is extremely deferential, approving 99 percent of all search warrant requests.

Leaks from federal officials spurred media hysteria that put Trump on the defensive even before he took his oath of office in January 2017. A 2018 Inspector General (IG) report revealed that one FBI agent labeled Trump supporters as “retarded” and declared, “I’m with her” (Clinton). Another FBI employee texted that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer texted that he was “devastated” by Trump’s election and declared, “Viva la Resistance!” and “I never really liked the Republic anyway.” The same person became the “primary FBI attorney assigned to [the Russian election-interference] investigation beginning in early 2017,” the IG noted.

FBI chief James Comey leaked official memos to friendly reporters, thereby spurring the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Trump. A 2019 Inspector General report noted that top FBI officials told the IG that they were “shocked,” “stunned,” and “surprised’ that Comey would leak the contents of one of the memos to a reporter. The IG concluded, “The unauthorized disclosure of this information — information that Comey knew only by virtue of his position as FBI Director — violated the terms of his FBI Employment Agreement and the FBI’s Prepublication Review Policy.” The IG concluded that by using sensitive information “to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” The IG report warned that “the civil liberties of every individual who may fall within the scope of the FBI’s investigative authorities depend on FBI’s ability to protect sensitive information from unauthorized disclosure.”

But the only penalty that Comey suffered was to collect multimillion-dollar advances for his book deals.

The Steele dossier

In December 2019, another Inspector General report confirmed that the FBI made “fundamental errors” to justify surveilling the Trump campaign. The FBI refrained from launching a FISA warrant request until it came into possession of a dossier from Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent. The Steele dossier played “a central and essential role in the decision by FBI [Office of General Counsel] to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page, as well as the FBI’s ultimate decision to seek the FISA order,” the IG report concluded. The FBI “drew almost entirely” from the Steele dossier to prove a “well-developed conspiracy” between Russians and the Trump campaign. The IG found that FBI agents were “unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page” in the Steele dossier but the FBI relied on Steele’s allegations regardless.

The FBI withheld from the FISA court key details that obliterated the dossier’s credibility, including a warning from a top Justice Department official that “Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the DNC [Democratic National Committee].” The CIA disdained the Steele dossier as “an internet rumor,” one FBI official told IG investigators.

Many if not most of the damning details involving Russiagate have still not been disclosed. But the occasional disclosures are doing nothing to burnish the credibility of the key players. On January 12, 2017, Comey attested to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that the Steele dossier used to hound the Trump campaign had been “verified.” But on the same day, he emailed the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, “We are not able to sufficiently corroborate the reporting.” That email was revealed this past February, thanks to a multi-year fight for disclosure by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

If the FBI’s deceit and political biases had been exposed in real time, there would have been far less national outrage when Trump fired Comey. Instead, that firing was quickly followed by the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the Russian charges. In April 2019, Mueller admitted there was no evidence of collusion. Conniving by FBI officials and the veil of secrecy that hid their abuses had roiled national politics for years.

Not one FBI official has spent a single day in jail for the abuses. In January, former FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced after he admitted falsifying key evidence used to secure the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. A federal prosecutor declared that the “resulting harm is immeasurable” from Clinesmith’s action. But a federal judge believed that a wrist slap was sufficient punishment — 400 hours of community service and 12 months of probation.

The Deep State defeated Trump in part because the president appointed agency chiefs who were more devoted to secrecy than to truth. Bureaucratic barricades were reinforced by judges who repeatedly defied common sense to perpetuate iron curtains around federal agencies.


Trump’s failure to extract the United States from the Syrian civil war was one of his biggest foreign policy pratfalls. Each time he sought to exit that quagmire, the Washington establishment and Deep State agencies pushed back.

When Trump tried to end CIA assistance to Syrian terrorist groups in July 2017, a Washington Post article portrayed his reversal in apocalyptic terms. Trump responded with an angry tweet: “The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.” That disclosure spurred a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the New York Times for CIA records on payments to Syrian rebel groups. The CIA denied the request and the case ended up in court.

CIA officer Antoinette Shiner warned the court that forcing the CIA to admit that it possessed any records of aiding Syrian rebels would “confirm the existence and the focus of sensitive Agency activity that is by definition kept hidden to protect U.S. government policy objectives.” Of course, “kept hidden” doesn’t apply to the CIA when it was engaged in “not for attribution” bragging to reporters. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius proudly cited an estimate from a “knowledgeable official” that “CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years.”

Federal judges, unlike Syrian civilians slaughtered by U.S.-funded terrorist groups, had the luxury of pretending the program didn’t exist. In a decision last July, the federal appeals court of the Second Circuit stressed that affidavits from CIA officials are “accorded a presumption of good faith” and stressed “the appropriate deference owed” to the CIA. The judges omitted quoting former CIA chief Mike Pompeo’s description of his agency’s modus operandi: “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It’s like we had entire training courses.”

Since Trump’s tweet did not specifically state that the program he was seeking to terminate actually existed, the judges entitled the CIA to pretend it was still top secret. The judges concluded with another kowtow, stressing that they were “mindful of the requisite deference courts traditionally owe to the executive in the area of classification.” Judge Robert Katzmann dissented, declaring that the court’s decision put its “imprimatur to a fiction of deniability that no reasonable person would regard as plausible.”

On February 9, another federal appeals court shot down a FOIA request from BuzzFeed journalist Jason Leopold who had sought the same records on the basis of Trump’s tweet. But the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia unanimously blocked Leopold’s request: “Did President Trump’s tweet officially acknowledge the existence of a program? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. And therein lies a problem.” The judges proffered no evidence that Trump had tweeted about a program that didn’t exist. The judges reached into an “Alice in Wonderland” bag of legal tricks and plucked out this pretext: “Even if the President’s tweet revealed some program, it did not reveal the existence of Agency records about that alleged program.” Since Trump failed to specify the exact room number where the records were located at CIA headquarters, the judges entitled the CIA to pretend the records didn’t exist.

Only a federal judge could shovel that kind of hokum. Well, also members of Congress and editorial writers, but that’s a story for another month.

*  *  *

In his final months in office, Trump repeatedly promised massive declassification which never came.

Was the president stymied by persons he had unwisely appointed, such as CIA chief Gina Haspel and FBI chief Christopher Wray? Or was that simply another series of empty Twitter eruptions that Trump failed to follow up? Instead, his legacy is another grim reminder of how government secrecy can determine political history.

Have Deep State federal agencies become a Godzilla with the prerogative to undermine elections? Unfortunately, there’s no chance that federal judges would permit disclosure of the answer to that question.

Former CIA and NSA boss Michael Hayden proudly proclaimed,

““Espionage is not just compatible with democracy; it’s essential for democracy.”

And how can we know if the Deep State’s espionage is actually pro-democracy or subversive of democracy? Again, don’t expect judges to permit any truths to escape on that score.

Secrecy is the ultimate entitlement program for the Deep State. The federal government is creating trillions of pages of new secrets every year. The more documents bureaucrats classify, the more lies politicians and government officials can tell. Federal judge Amy Berman Jackson warned in 2019, “If people don’t have the facts, democracy doesn’t work.”

Actually, it is working very well for the FBI, CIA, and other Deep State agencies.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/23/2021 - 22:40




The Tablet That Cracked COVID

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.


Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Will a 30-year sentence for Chauvin wake America up?



On Friday, June 25, the world will learn to what degree the American criminal justice system has collapsed under the weight of liberal guilt and leftist terror.

Friday is the day Judge Peter Cahill will impose sentence upon former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the May 2020 "murder" of George Floyd.

The prosecutors have asked Judge Cahill to sentence Chauvin to 30 years in prison – two times the upper end of the sentencing range – and Cahill is likely to give them much of what they asked for, perhaps all of it.

Cahill's finding of facts gave prosecutors the cover to shoot for the moon. As Cahill saw things, Chauvin abused his position of trust and authority and treated Floyd with "particular cruelty."

Cahill cited two other "aggravating" factors, neither of which Chauvin could control: acting in concert with at least three other people and, bizarrely, committing his crime in the presence of children.

Cahill knows the facts. Ambition may have driven the prosecutors, but only fear can explain Cahill's misinterpretation of reality. Indeed, fear has driven the whole legal proceeding.

Chauvin is not your average murderer. He did not seek out his victim. By aggressively resisting a valid arrest, George Floyd sought him.

Chauvin did not go to the crime scene voluntarily. The dispatcher sent him. Once at the scene, he found two rookie cops struggling to subdue the muscular 223-pound Floyd in the back of the police vehicle.

Cahill concedes as much. "Although George Floyd was handcuffed, he had still been able to resist and to prevent three police officers from seating him in a squad car. …"

After assessing the scene for a minute, Chauvin did not strike Floyd or tase him. He offered to roll down the car windows and turn on the air conditioning to alleviate Floyd's anxieties, not routine behavior for a murderer. None of this made Cahill's filing.

Critically, Cahill also omitted Floyd's comments when allowed out of the car, "Thank you. Thank you. I want to lay on the ground, I want to lay on the ground. I'm going down, I'm going down. I'm going down." Floyd seemed less troubled by his laying "against the hard street surface" than Cahill.

Chauvin then called for an EMT. Upon realizing that Floyd was in distress, he upped the urgency level when he called again – again, not a sign of what Cahill called "particular cruelty."

As to the restraint used by Chauvin while awaiting the ambulance, use-of-force expert Barry Brodd testified at the trial that Chauvin was "acting with objective reasonableness, following Minneapolis Police Department policy and current standards of law enforcement."

As a result of his testimony, vandals smeared blood on the home they thought Brodd lived in and left behind a pig's head as a reminder to other "pigs" who might be inclined to testify in Chauvin's behalf.

While helping Chauvin restrain Floyd, Officer Thomas Lane said, "I am worried about excited delirium or whatever." Chauvin responded, "That's why we have him on his stomach."

According to Cahill, Chauvin abused his trust by "declining two suggestions from one of his fellow officers to place Floyd on his side." Cahill did not mention that Lane had been on the job for about a week.

In that Chauvin did not testify, Cahill had no way of knowing why he rejected Lane's advice. His response – "That's why" – suggests Chauvin was acting to prevent Floyd from hurting himself.

And why would he kill Floyd? Absent in Cahill's filing, absent throughout the trial, was any hint of motive. Chauvin knew he was being recorded. He likely thought he was doing everything by the book. If he erred, it was in seeming too professional, too cool under fire.

Nor is there any evidence that placing Floyd on his side would have made any difference. Floyd repeatedly said he could not breathe while sitting upright in the patrol car.

Although Cahill made several mentions of "asphyxia" as the cause of Floyd's death, the medical examiner who did the autopsy made no mention of "asphyxia" at all.

As Dr. David Fowler testified at the trial and as Dr. John Dunn proved>A? in subsequent experiments, the restraint used by Chauvin and his colleagues has no negative effect on a healthy individual.

Chauvin had no way of knowing that the perp – soon to become victim – had two dangerously blocked arteries or that he had ingested enough fentanyl to kill a man three times over and enough meth to finish the job.

No matter. NBC blithely compares Chauvin to a man who beat his mother to death and very nearly did the same to his father. Cahill recently sentenced that man to 15 years in prison.

In November 2019, Cahill sentenced a man to seven years in prison "for shooting at a school bus and wounding its driver during a snowstorm in Minneapolis."

Although Cahill was not involved in the sentencing, George Floyd was arrested in 2007 for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The complainant, a female, was reportedly pregnant.

According to the probable cause document, "The largest of these suspects [Floyd] forced his way into the residence, placed a pistol against the complainant's abdomen, and forced her into the living room area of the residence."

Floyd was sentenced to five years. He served less than four. Floyd had been arrested nine times. Chauvin just once, but Chauvin could very well serve more prison time than Floyd.

Like the Scottsboro Boys and others, Derek Chauvin made the mistake of being of the wrong race in the wrong place at the wrong time. And unless Cahill acknowledges as much, history will not forgive him.

Jack Cashill's new book, "Unmasking Obama: The Fight to Tell the True Story of a Failed Presidency," is widely available. See also

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact


The post Will a 30-year sentence for Chauvin wake America up? appeared first on WND.


The COVID Lockdowns Showed Us How Dangerous Social Engineers Have Become

The COVID Lockdowns Showed Us How Dangerous Social Engineers Have Become

Authored by Birsen Filip via The Mises Institute,

Since the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, governments around the world, along with a handful of unelected medical experts, have been behaving as though they are the social engineers of totalitarian regimes (e.g., fascism, Nazism, and communism).

To be more precise, this select group of political leaders and medical experts have upended economies, as well as the lives of billions of ordinary people, by implementing extremely coercive and restrictive lockdowns and physical distancing measures for the stated purpose of bringing the pandemic under control and preventing future outbreaks.

Specific measures have included curfews; police patrols on the streets; the compulsory closure of businesses deemed nonessential, as well as workplaces, schools, and institutions of higher education; the banning of social gatherings; the cancelation of sporting and cultural events; the suspension of religious services; and restrictions on personal movement and interactions at the local, national, and international levels. In many parts of the world, people have been subjected to mandatory stay-at-home orders, requiring them to spend most of the day confined and isolated in their homes.

Lockdown measures have also been used to prohibit people from engaging in public protests and freely expressing their opinions, as failure to comply with limits on social gatherings has led to people being arrested, detained, and fined. It has also not been uncommon to see excessive police force being used to enforce lockdowns and curfews, and to disperse protests against unreasonable restrictions. Some governments have also set up detention centers for international travelers entering into their countries, where they are forced to quarantine at their own expense while they wait for the results of their covid-19 tests. Shockingly, in early June 2021, the provincial government in Ontario, Canada, went so far as to announce that residents in long-term care homes would soon be permitted to engage in “close physical contact, including handholding” and “brief hugs” with visitors when both parties are fully immunized.

Unfortunately, instead of criticizing this state of affairs, the mainstream media and major social media platforms are fully on board. They have turned out to be willing collaborators of the governments in these matters by glorifying their oppressive and punitive measures, censuring critical viewpoints, and fostering a culture of surveillance, all while spreading fear. They have also been ceaselessly promoting the injection of experimental vaccines as the only solution that will bring totalitarian lockdown measures to an end.

If Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek had witnessed the type of central planning that has taken place since the beginning of the pandemic, they would have called it “holistic social engineering.” They were convinced that supporters of the concept of a social engineer sought to extend “the power of the State” in controlling and reshaping society as a whole in accordance with their own ideals, goals, and wills. According to Popper, social engineers believe that they can diagnose the goals and needs of society, and then implement a strategy to achieve them through large-scale planning. However, such an undertaking would require social engineers to centrally coordinate the activities of millions of people by replacing the wills and ends of those individuals with their own. Meanwhile, Hayek stated that the best way to make everybody serve the ends of the social engineers is

to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants. If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.

Social engineers of the pandemic have been largely successful in convincing the masses that the oppressive lockdown measures that they are being forced to endure are ultimately in the best interests of society as a whole. In many instances, they have managed to make many people believe that the goals of the lockdowns are in fact their own goals. At the same time, social engineers have been discouraging “criticism,” as they do not “easily hear of complaints concerning the measures” that they have instituted. Accordingly, the critical views put forth by some journalists, activists, dissenters, legal experts, medical professionals, and anybody else who cares about freedom, human rights violations, and the common good have been systematically silenced. Popper explained that the social engineer:

will have to be deaf to many complaints; in fact, it will be part of his business to suppress unreasonable objections. (He will say, like Lenin, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”) But with it, he must invariably suppress reasonable criticism also.

After nearly a year and a half of antiliberal, undemocratic, unethical, antiscientific, ahistorical, and oppressive governmental measures, while denying billions of people their basic human rights, freedom, and sovereignty, social and economic life has essentially been completely crippled in many countries and regions. Nonetheless, social engineers of the pandemic period have treated critics and complaints as “a blemish,” proof of irrationality, and violations of the common good.

Hayek and Popper incessantly warned about the form of central planning that we are currently being subjected to, which has been used by numerous dictators and tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. They specifically argued that it would not only lead societies down “the road to serfdom,” but also cause irreversible, large-scale social and economic damage. In fact, since the lockdowns began, general freedom (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and intellectual freedom), negative freedom (i.e., freedom from coercion), positive freedom (i.e., freedom of self-development), subjective freedom (i.e., freedom to act based on one’s own will and views), objective freedom (i.e., freedom of “being with other”), and economic freedom (e.g., freedom to earn one’s living, to produce, to buy, to sell, etc.) have been all violated to some extent. Furthermore, hundreds of millions of people have lost their jobs or endured income reductions, many small and medium-sized companies have gone bankrupt, unemployment rates have increased across major economies, and most countries have gone into recession. Moreover, the lockdowns have also had a number of unintended social and health consequences, including increases in domestic violence to unprecedented levels, in the form of both physical and emotional abuse; a significant rise in substance abuse and related deaths (i.e., overdoses); worsening mental health problems leading to depression and suicides; isolation and antisocial lifestyles and behavior, particularly in children; physical inactivity and weight gain; and, the cancellation or delay of medical procedures, surgeries, and consultations. The unexpected destructive consequences of the totalitarian lockdown measures will undoubtedly be felt for decades to come.

Hayek and Popper would not have been surprised that the lockdown measures generated so many adverse impacts on people, the economy, and society. In fact, they warned that social engineering could never successfully achieve its predetermined goals and ends in the real world for two main reasons: the limited and dispersed nature of human knowledge and the spontaneous forces of society. Based on the concept of dispersed knowledge, “we know little of the particular facts to which the whole of social activity continuously adjusts itself in order to provide what we have learned to expect. We know even less of the forces which bring about this adjustment by appropriately coordinating individual activity.”

Hayek and Popper would have argued that social engineers of the pandemic could not realistically possess the type and the abundance of knowledge needed to plan such large-scale oppressive lockdowns. According to them, by ignoring the dispersed nature of human knowledge, social engineers falsely believed that they could possess all of the knowledge required to redesign an entire society while also having complete control over all efforts directed toward the achievement of teleologically evaluated goals. In fact, Hayek and Popper concluded that it was impossible to exercise complete control over society via social engineering because the limitations of human knowledge meant that nobody could foresee all of the possible consequences of human actions, which is necessary if common goals are to be achieved. These sentiments apply to contemporary social engineers of the pandemic, and could explain why they were unable to accurately predict the consequences of many of the oppressive policies and measures that were intended to mitigate the spread and impacts of covid-19.

Popper and Hayek argued that even if it were hypothetically possible for a social engineer to possess all the knowledge needed to centrally plan and organize an entire society, they would still be unable to attain their teleologically evaluated goals in the manner they envisioned on account of the spontaneous forces of society, which represent the second main obstacle to the success of large-scale central planning. The spontaneous forces of society would make it impossible to effectively collect detailed information about the constantly changing activities, private interests, particular circumstances, complex relationships, and preferences of millions of people. The unexpected and unplanned outcomes associated with the spontaneous forces of society mean that the original plans of any social engineer will end in failure, because “the real outcome will always be very different from the rational construction” of the social engineer. In order to realize their predetermined goals, social engineers would be forced to continuously modify and change their plans, while using their exclusive power to coerce individuals for the purpose of imposing increasingly restrictive measures. That is to say, they would need to constantly interfere in the choices that individuals make without having to obtain any input from them.

Hayek warned that the coercive measures employed by social engineers could “destroy those spontaneous forces which have made advance” and progress possible across history, and inevitably result in “a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason.” He wanted people to understand that while “it may not be difficult to destroy the spontaneous formations which are the indispensable bases of a free civilization, it may be beyond our power deliberately to reconstruct such a civilization once these foundations are destroyed.” This is why Popper called social engineering the “greatest and most urgent evil of society.” According to him, “even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it hell—that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/23/2021 - 16:40