Saturday, July 1, 2023

Hospital Murder: Attorney Unveils Shocking Survival Rates Among Mechanically Ventilated COVID Patients

“You got a cash bonus when someone died from COVID. It was an incentive to kill people, and it worked incredibly well.”

The U.S. Federal government incentivized “not people recovering from COVID but people dying from COVID,” testified attorney Thomas Renz to the Pennsylvania State Senate. “You got a cash bonus when someone died from COVID. It was an incentive to kill people, and it worked incredibly well.”

One of the most objectionable protocols for treating COVID was the widespread use of a drug (Remdesivir) so infamous that it earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near.”

“The experts claimed that Remdesivir would stop Covid; instead, it stopped kidney function, then blasted the liver and other organs,” wrote Stella Paul in this piece.

Excessive morphine administration was another issue. A hospital pharmacist blew the whistle to attorney Thomas Renz that the floor she worked on made a habit of going “up on the morphine drip” to “take care of business.” More details on that can be found here:

But the single deadliest protocol of all, based on health outcomes, was the ubiquitous use of mechanical ventilators.

“Fauci knew vents did more harm than good,” asserted osteopathic physician Dr. Joseph Mercola on his Substack page. Here’s what he had to say about “The COVID hospital death trap.”

Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.

76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%.

The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine.

Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation (see graph below).

“No one told the patients, hey, you’re going to be put on this vent. It’s probably going to kill you, but it may protect the healthcare workers,” remarked attorney Renz. “No one told the families that.”

“And by the way,” he continued, “we actually had whistleblower testimony from a yet-to-be-unmasked whistleblower … who worked for CMS. I’ve got data from CMS that showed in a number of Texas hospitals, as high as 90% of patients put on the vent died. 90%.”

“Now, they wouldn’t let you try ivermectin, but they were more than willing to put you on the vent where you had a 90% fatality rate,” attorney Renz denounced. “You tell me that they didn’t notice? I can’t say all doctors are created equal. [Peter] McCullough is ahead above most. But you got through med school. I would think you would probably be smart enough to notice when nine out of ten of your patients, when they’re put on the vent, die.”

“At least maybe you should ask the question, is there a better way? Why not let someone try ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine if you have a nine out of ten chance of dying anyways?”

So, why did most doctors not opt for alternative treatments instead?

Following the money will give you the likely answer, as Federal funds encouraged a specific course of action. Attorney Renz detailed the “perverse” incentives in place during his Pennsylvania State Senate testimony last year. “We have incentivized the murder of patients rather than incentivized treatment.”

“When you go to the hospital, you get tested. They get paid more. When you get admitted for COVID, they get paid more. When they put you on remdesivir, they get paid more. When you get ventilated, they get paid more. When you die, they get paid more. This is perverse.”

He ended last year’s testimony by asking, “Do you want us to incentivize hospitals to have good outcomes, or do you want us to continue incentivizing the murder of your loved ones?”

Attorney Renz “fought with hospital after hospital after hospital” to try and save the lives of family members of people calling him on the phone.

And that’s why he said this issue is so dear to his heart. “We essentially legislated these deaths into being … it was an incentive to kill people, and it worked incredibly well.”

If you witnessed a loved one go through a horrendous hospital experience during COVID, please leave a brief testimony and share this post. When stories from thousands, even hundreds, echo the same distressing narrative, it transcends the realm of anecdotal evidence. It then becomes an alarming indication of gross negligence on a mass scale — and potentially malice.

The post Hospital ‘Murder’: Attorney Unveils Shocking Survival Rates Among Mechanically Ventilated COVID Patients appeared first on DailyClout.


Joe Rogan Interview With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.



  • June 15, 2023, podcast host Joe Rogan interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently running as a Democratic presidential candidate

  • In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers

  • During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected their children had been injured by mercury-containing vaccines. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines

  • The mother of a vaccine-injured child brought him a thick stack of published research, and after looking through it, Kennedy realized that what health officials told us was very different from what the science showed

  • Kennedy is now also legally representing people who claim they’ve been injured by cellphone radiation, which science shows can cause cancer, degrade mitochondria and make your blood-brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins in your system to flood into your brain


June 15, 2023, podcast host Joe Rogan interviewed1 Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is currently running as a Democratic presidential candidate. Rogan admits being blown away by Kennedy’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” in part because the information in that book was not talked about anywhere else, and radically veered from the official narrative.

Still, if anything in that book was false, Kennedy would have been sued to high heaven by now, Rogan reasoned. Reading that book opened Rogan’s eyes to the fact that what we’re told by public officials and the media isn’t necessarily the truth. He also realized just how easy it is to fall for a false narrative — especially when it’s all you’re ever allowed to really hear.

For the first several minutes of the interview, Kennedy reviewed his background and how he got to where he is today. He started his legal career as an environmental lawyer in the mid-1960s, suing 500 polluters who had turned the Hudson River into a sewer, on behalf of commercial fishermen whose livelihoods were threatened.

As a result of those lawsuits, the Hudson River was cleaned up and restored. These successes led Kennedy to found Riverkeeper,2 which patrols waterways in 46 countries, holds polluters accountable and defends clean drinking water.

How Kennedy Got Involved With Vaccine Safety

I would strongly encourage you to listen to this interview as around the 10-minute mark Rogan asks Kennedy how he got into the vaccine controversy. Although Kennedy had presented some of his comments in the media previously, this is the first time he was ever allowed to give his uninterrupted one-hour fascinating story on major media.

In 2005, Kennedy started suing coal-burning powerplants and cement kilns for releasing mercury into waterways. He launched these lawsuits on behalf of local Riverkeeper chapters after learning that mercury was being found in the flesh of most freshwater fish. Pregnant women were also found to have levels that might put their children at risk of developmental problems.

Kennedy also pushed legislation to protect children against mercury and gave lectures on its dangers. During those lectures, mothers started approaching him saying they suspected that mercury (thimerosal) in the childhood vaccines had injured their children. They told him that if he was really interested in protecting children against mercury, he had to investigate vaccines.

He resisted, as his focus was on environmental pollution and he didn’t want to get involved in public health. However, mothers of developmentally challenged children kept coming to his speeches, wanting to talk to him about vaccines.

Their continued pressure eventually changed his mind, and he decided to listen to their concerns. The true turning point came when a psychologist named Sarah Bridges found his home address and delivered an 18-inch thick stack of scientific papers, saying she would not leave until he’d read them.

Bridges was one of the few people who had been awarded $20 million by the vaccine court, which had concluded that her son’s autism had been caused by a vaccine. She just didn’t want other parents to go through the same heartache.

Huge Gap Between Public Narrative and Published Science

Kennedy began reading, and by the time he’d gone through a third of the pile, he came to the realization that there was a huge gap between what the public health agencies were saying about vaccine safety and what the published science showed.

Kennedy then started calling high-level public health officials and regulators, asking them about these studies and, to his surprise, he realized none of them had read them. They were all just repeating what they had been told about the science. Stranger still, they told him to take his questions to people in the vaccine industry.

Kennedy did contact Dr. Paul Offit, as suggested, and caught Offit in a blatant lie. He asked Offit, how come pregnant women are told not to eat tuna fish to avoid mercury, but are then told to get flu shots that contain a huge bolus of mercury? Offit told him “there are two kinds of mercury, a good mercury and a bad mercury.” According to Offit, fish contain the bad kind, whereas the mercury in vaccines is harmless.

The problem was, Kennedy is an expert on mercury, having spent years suing mercury polluters. He has a deep understanding of the two types of mercury (ethylmercury in vaccines and methylmercury in fish), and there’s no such thing as a “good” or harmless mercury.

Kennedy, an excellent storyteller, goes on to review the history of vaccine science and why toxic elements like mercury are used at all. This interview is without doubt one of the most educational “lectures” on vaccines available right now, so I encourage you to listen to at least the first hour, if you don’t have time for the whole thing.

Ethylmercury Lodges in the Brain

Importantly, he reviews crucial research that firmly debunks the claim that ethylmercury is excreted from the body within a week. Studies on monkeys, where the animals were sacrificed after vaccination (which you cannot do with children), showed that the reason there was no ethylmercury in the blood after several days was because it had traveled into the brain, where it stayed, causing inflammation.

When Kennedy challenged Offit on this point, Offit insisted that, while this research did show that ethylmercury lodged in the brain, “the mosaic of studies” proved it was harmless and left the body.

Kennedy asked him to share those studies, which Offit promised to do but never did. Kennedy never heard from him again. At that point, Kennedy realized that something was terribly wrong, and he couldn’t walk away.

Kennedy also challenged Dr. Anthony Fauci — who is a close friend of the Kennedy family — to show him a single placebo-controlled trial of a vaccine listed on the childhood vaccination schedule. Fauci said he would send him the studies, but, like Offit, never did.

The reality is, none of the mandated vaccines has ever been tested against a true placebo, such as saline. Most are tested against other vaccines, and if you’re testing two products that contain a similar toxin, of course, the outcomes will be similar. That doesn’t mean you’ve proven safety. Not even close.

Kennedy eventually sued the Health and Human Services Department to obtain the evidence Fauci claimed to have, and after a year the HHS finally returned a letter saying there were no such safety studies. “So, nobody knows what the risk profiles of these products are,” Kennedy says.

The sheer lack of data also means that anyone who claims vaccines have saved more lives by preventing disease than they’ve destroyed through side effects is simply guessing and making assumptions. There’s no scientific data to back that up.

Also, Kennedy points out that while many vaccines are now mercury-free, they’re loaded with aluminum adjuvant instead, which is just as bad. So they’ve just exchanged one neurotoxin for another.

Intentional Suppression of the Autism Signal

Kennedy goes on to tell the story of a secret meeting3 organized by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1999 after they conducted an internal study of their database, which contains the medical records, including the vaccination records, of 10 million children from the 10 biggest HMOs.

Specifically, they wanted to know whether mercury-containing vaccines might be causing autism. One of the first comparisons of health outcomes was done on the hepatitis B vaccine.

The data showed that infants who had received the hepatitis B vaccine within 30 days of birth had a 1,135% higher risk of autism compared to infants who either did not get the hepatitis B vaccine at all or received it after 30 days of age. “At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic,” Kennedy told Rogan, because “that’s a relative risk of 11.35, and a relative risk of 2 is proof of causation.”

As panic spread through the industry, the CDC put together this secret meeting at a retreat center in Georgia. It was intentionally held outside the CDC campus to circumvent FOIA laws. The meeting included representatives from all the major vaccine companies, regulatory agencies that administer vaccines, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Health and Human Services Department and leading academic institutions that conduct clinical trials.

The first day was spent discussing the reality of the problem, and the second day was spent discussing how to hide it. While the meeting was held in secret, someone did record it and, in 2005, Kennedy obtained a copy of it. You can read the transcript on the Children’s Health Defense website.

Early on in that 286-page transcript, we find the following admission by Walter Orenstein, then-director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC:4

“Initial concerns were raised last summer that mercury, as methylmercury in vaccines, might exceed safe levels ... Analysis to date raise some concerns of a possible dose-response effect of increasing levels of methylmercury in vaccines and certain neurologic diagnoses.”

What happened to this safety signal? As explained by Kennedy, it was intentionally “vanished” by reworking the study four times, using statistical tricks.5 After the fourth iteration, the signal linking thimerosal with autism and a half dozen other neurodevelopmental disorders were no longer detectable.

The CDC published that final version and announced thimerosal had been investigated and found to be safe. And when investigators asked to see the raw data, the CDC claimed the data had been “lost,” so no one was ever able to verify the results. The fabrication stuck and has been peddled ever since.

We Live in a Toxic Soup

Kennedy stresses that vaccines are not the only factor in the epidemics of chronic disease and autism in children. There are many other factors as well. Children are exposed to an enormous amount of toxins from many different sources, including electromagnetic fields (EMF) and wireless radiation.

Kennedy is currently representing people who blame their brain tumors on cellphone radiation, and “we have the science,” he says. “Tens of thousands of studies show the dangers of Wi-Fi radiation.”

Aside from cancer, cellphone radiation degrades your mitochondria and makes your blood-brain barrier more permeable, Kennedy says, allowing all the other toxins in your system to flood in. So, this too, could play a significant role in the neurological dysfunction we now see in so many children. Kennedy also discusses the history behind and toxic influence of glyphosate, especially on your gut. (Incidentally, gut dysfunction is also a hallmark in autism.)

This is an interesting part of the interview as when Kennedy first mentions EMF, Rogan doubts it is true and doesn’t believe him. After Kennedy’s explanation you see Rogan morph in real time to a believer in EMF dangers and even ask his assistant Jamie to look into getting rid of the Wi-Fi.

Rogan Invites Dr. Hotez to Debate RFK

Yesterday, I published an article reviewing the online debate that erupted after this interview, when Dr. Peter Hotez took to Twitter, slamming Spotify for not clamping down on Rogan’s “vaccine misinformation.”6 Never mind the fact that Hotez, in April 2020, was allowed to argue his own irrational vaccine stance on Rogan’s show.7

Rogan replied to Hotez’s tweet, saying, “Peter, if you claim what RFK Jr. is saying is ‘misinformation,’ I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit.” Others further sweetened Rogan’s offer by adding their own donations and, by 9 a.m. EST on June 18, the pot had reached $1.52 million.

Hotez refused, albeit indirectly. Instead of giving Rogan a direct answer, he went on the MSNBC show “Rising Reacts” and said he wasn’t willing to participate in an event that would get turned into “The Jerry Springer Show” by having Kennedy there.

Once you’ve listened to this interview, you can probably understand why no one is willing to engage in a public debate with Kennedy on this issue, particularly if you also heard Rogan’s interview8 with Hotez and compare the two. Kennedy has the data to back his claims and they have none.

On a side note, I find it curious that after Rogan took a beating in the press for discussing how he used ivermectin to treat a bout of COVID-19, he really hasn’t had any hard-hitting health-related truthtellers on his show — until Kennedy.

In my view, Spotify is hardly a free speech platform, so maybe that shouldn’t be that surprising. Spotify killed our account due to a discussion about EMF, and they didn’t just take that episode down. They removed all of my content.

Rogan has an exclusive contract with Spotify that grants him more freedom than most others, but I doubt he has completely free reign. That said, I’m glad he brought Kennedy on, and allowed him to talk uninterrupted.

Subscribe to Mercola Newsletter

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.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.


The Unabomber Was a CIA Guinea Pig


Via Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, earned notoriety for committing 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995
  • Kaczynski was just 16 years old and already a student at Harvard University when he became part of the CIA’s top-secret MK-Ultra project
  • Describing the CIA experiment, Kaczynski’s brother explained, “Every week for three years, someone met with him to verbally abuse him and humiliate him”
  • Prior to his arrest, Kaczynski succeeded in getting The Washington Post and The New York Times to publish his 35,000-word manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future”
  • Kaczynski’s manifesto, with its core premise of technology threatening to destroy the world and make humans its slaves, has struck a chord with a new generation of youth who have found themselves increasingly dependent on Big Tech and, now, AI

Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, earned notoriety for committing 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995. But before he turned violent, Kaczynski was used as a pawn by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which subjected him to cruel, mind-altering experiments.1

Kaczynski, then, could be described as a construct of the CIA, a product of its teachings. Three people lost their lives as a result of Kaczynski’s bombings, and 23 were injured, many seriously. He died in his North Carolina prison cell in June 2023, where he is said to have committed suicide.2

For some, his death puts to rest an era of terror that sowed fear into Americans. But many questions remain. Kaczynski’s homemade bombs were mailed to those he believed to be destroying society with technological advances,3 and the damage done to Kaczynski’s psyche by the CIA may never be fully known.

Unabomber Was Part of CIA’s MK-Ultra Program

Kaczynski was just 16 years old and already a student at Harvard University when he became part of the CIA’s top-secret MK-Ultra project. MK-Ultra involved mind control experiments, human torture and other medical studies, including how much LSD it would take to “shatter the mind and blast away consciousness.”4 According to Kaczynski’s brother, David Kaczynski:5

“The Harvard study my brother participated in was called “Multiform Assessments of Personality Development Among Gifted College Men.” It was overseen by the noted psychologist Henry Murray, who during WWII worked for the OSS [Office of Strategic Services] (which later became the CIA), where he developed methodologies for interrogating prisoners of war.

In his professional life, Murray was known for his brilliance and his grandiosity. In his personal life, according to his biographer, he displayed sadistic tendencies. His research on college men bears a certain resemblance to his research on prisoners of war. He was quite a big wheel in his day, perhaps as well known and influential in military and government circles as he was in academia.”

According to Jonathan Moreno, Ph.D., an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and a professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania,6 “The experiment Ted Kaczynski participated in at Harvard involved psychological torment and humiliation.”7

Moreno disclosed in a Psychology Today article that Murray, who conducted the three-year humiliation experiment, was a “close friend and colleague” of his father’s, although the Morenos weren’t aware of the trial. According to Moreno:8

“The Harvard study aimed at psychic deconstruction by humiliating undergraduates and thereby causing them to experience severe stress. Kaczynski’s anti-technological fixation and his critique itself had some roots in the Harvard curriculum, which emphasized the supposed objectivity of science compared with the subjectivity of ethics.”

Weekly Verbal Abuse and Humiliation

Describing the CIA experiment, Kaczynski’s brother explained, “Every week for three years, someone met with him to verbally abuse him and humiliate him. He never told us about the experiments, but we noticed how he changed. He became harder, more defensive in his interactions with people.”9

After Harvard, Kaczynski received a Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of Michigan and went on to teach at the University of California, Berkeley, before largely disappearing from society.10 Prior to his arrest, he succeeded in getting The Washington Post and The New York Times to publish his 35,000-word manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future.” Moreno explained in 2012:11

“Kaczynski believes that the Industrial Revolution was the font of human enslavement. ‘The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs,’ he wrote. ‘Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.’ The only way out is to destroy the fruits of industrialization, to promote the return of ‘WILD nature,’ in spite of the potentially negative consequences of doing so, he wrote.”

Was Kaczynski’s terrorism the result of the CIA’s psychological torture? The world may never know. But in his book, “Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense,” Moreno states the psychological experiment could have left “deep scars.”12


Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

Other Criminals Also Subjected to CIA Torment

In a review of “Mind Wars,” author and professional speaker Richard Thieme brings up another notable criminal who was subjected to CIA mind games — the late Donald DeFreeze, also known as Cinque, who led the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA):13

“DeFreeze and other members of the SLA kidnapped Patty Hearst and subjected her to brainwashing using classical mind control techniques. It is seldom asked how DeFreeze learned to brainwash so effectively.

Colin A. Ross, M.D. in “Bluebird,” a study of the deliberate creation of multiple personalities, notes that DeFreeze, while an inmate at Vacaville State Prison, was “a subject in an experimental behavior modification program run by Colston Westbrook, a CIA psychological warfare expert and advisor to the Korean CIA.” (Bluebird, p.212).”

In terms of Kaczynski, Thieme notes:14

“The accounts of both Kaczinski and DeFreeze suggest that their crimes might have been “blowback,” unintended consequences of covert intelligence operations that rebound on perpetrators. If those accounts were not public, however, and we speculated in that vein about DeFreeze and Kaczinski, it would be easy to dismiss our speculation as “conspiracy theories” or sloppy thinking.

We know those two accounts are not the only experiments that might have backfired, but prudence suggests we not extrapolate from the known data, lest we be ridiculed. That’s what respectability in a world of strangeness requires. But in light of those accounts, it is not unreasonable to ask, what other rough beasts have slouched out of covert research to be born?”

Was the Unabomber Mentally Ill?

After his arrest, Kaczynski was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.15 His brother wrote:16

“My brother became the Unabomber as a result of a mental illness involving paranoia and delusions of reference. Clearly, he personalized his sense of the world’s wrong in a way that most of us do not.

He wrote in his diary that he’d decided to take “revenge” on society — as if there were some actual entity answering to the name “Society,” as if his victims somehow represented Society with a capital S, as if they had consciously harmed him, as if the concept of revenge made any sense in this context.”

Kaczynski, however, insisted he was not mentally ill and reportedly tried to fire his lawyers when they suggested using an insanity defense. He instead pleaded guilty and told Time magazine in 1999, “I’m confident that I’m sane. I don’t get delusions and so forth.”17

In a 2001 interview with Blackfoot Valley Dispatch, Kaczynski also describes his desire to live in the wild, which afforded him “certain satisfactions” like “personal freedom, independence, a certain element of adventure, a low-stress way of life.” It was a “crisis” that prompted him to leave society behind, he said:18,19

“At about the beginning of my last year at the University of Michigan I went through a kind of crisis. You could say that the psychological chains with which society binds us sort of broke for me. After that I was sure that I had the courage to break away from the system, to take off and just go into some wild place and try to live there.”

Kaczynski ‘Might Not Be Wrong’

Kaczynski’s manifesto, with its core premise of technology threatening to destroy the world and make humans its slaves, has struck a chord with a new generation of youth who have found themselves increasingly dependent on Big Tech and, now, AI.

Krystal Ball, host of “Breaking Points” with Krystal and Saagar, says in an episode titled, “Was Ted Kaczynski Right About Everything?”:20

“He also writes compellingly about the dangers of AI. He wrote, ‘A society in the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones.

Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control.”

Even Elon Musk tweeted about Kaczynski’s musings on technology’s dangers, “He might not be wrong.”21 As for Kaczynski’s fate, Ball says:22

“Kaczynski himself, in a lot of ways, was the cultural product of modernity. The boy genius with the freakish mathematical aptitude, swept up at the tender age of 16, shipped off to Harvard where he would be fast-tracked into elite Society so his market desirable intellect could be put to use by the government, and where he would be experimented on as part of the CIA’s MK-Ultra project.

When he became a terrorist, his exploits were packaged into digestible bites for mass news media audience that was just getting a taste for the 24-hour news cycle. Kaczynski argued that the unbearable weight of the current system would eventually come crashing down. Now, nothing quite so apocalyptic has happened, but post-pandemic we have certainly seen a dramatic reordering of human priorities.”

Others, including historian and journalist Oliver Bateman, have shared that many people share the same ideologies as Kaczynski, especially in their youth. “The young long for autonomy, to seize control in a world that often seems controlled by faceless entities and systems,” Bateman says.23 He, too, tested out life in a remote location in western Montana, but says he eventually “came to his senses” and returned to society:24

“We could possibly devote our lives to relearning the skills necessary for physical labor, striving for a self-sufficient existence, toiling away while the world around us succumbs to apocalyptic decay.

However, the reality for most people, as they navigate the complexities of adulthood, is a series of compromises and an acceptance of societal norms, conflicts, and even banalities. We work steady jobs, contribute to society in our own ways, and seek a balance between our ideals and the practical demands of our daily lives. After my time in Montana, I returned to academia, before settling into a career in the private sector and starting a family.”

A ‘Complicated Figure’

Bateman suggests Kaczynski “never grew up” and didn’t learn to accept life’s disappointments. But Ball suggests the cogs in the machine are moving toward more empowerment and autonomy every day. Particularly since the pandemic, she says:25

“We’ve seen people move to find a quality of life, which more adequately nourishes their soul and their families. We have seen workers demanding accommodations for their new lifestyles rather than just sliding back into the old ways in which work life was everything.

We’ve seen historic support for worker-empowering labor movements and workers sparking grassroots movements to establish power and autonomy in their workplaces. These are all reformist attempts to reclaim the power that Ted argued the modern world had stripped from us all.

We should witness those attempts and we should be encouraged because for me personally I would like to find a way to promote human thriving and empowerment and protect the natural environment without having to give up antibiotics and air conditioning and maybe without indiscriminately murdering random people. So, Ted, complicated figure.”

The Unabomber’s story is, indeed, complex, and not confined to one person or event. Kaczynski’s brother explained, “My brother was a victim before he victimized others – and in this he is hardly unique.”26 But is this just an excuse for inexcusable behavior? He says:27

“It may seem that I am trying to provide my brother with a handy excuse — a deflection of blame — for having killed three people and devastated numerous lives. But that is not my point. I believe that we are both individually responsible for our actions, and collectively responsible for conditions of harm and injustice that exist in our world …

Those who victimized him exercised cruelty with impunity, and quite possibly with the best of intentions. Status and power are hardly guarantees of good judgment or good character. Thus, the lessons we must learn are complex.”



This is the “angrier world” that Klaus Schwab warned us about. France has been thrown into chaos as riots rage across the country following the deadly shooting of a 17-year-old boy named Nahel M, a French citizen of North African descent, by a police officer during a traffic stop. As Revolver.


Friday, June 30, 2023

How then shall we think about the economy?

Jeffrey Tucker (President of the Brownstone Institute) linked today to a fascinating article on the 300 year anniversary of Adam Smith’s birth and his impact on the founding of the United States.


Brazilian Court Rules Ex-President Bolsonaro Must Wait Eight Years To Run For Office Again



<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

The Brazilian Supreme Court ruled on Friday former President Jair Bolsonaro will not be allowed to run for office again until eight years have passed.

The decision comes after the ex-president valiantly fought to expose what he claimed was a fraudulent 2022 election in the nation.

This is a blatant attack on anti-globalist leaders trying to save their nations from falling victim to policies being handed down by groups such as the World Economic Forum and World Health Organization.

Axios reports on the court’s ruling below:

Brazil’s highest elections court voted Friday to ban former President Jair Bolsonaro from running for office for eight years for undermining the country’s democracy by making false claims about its voting system.

Why it matters: The ruling, if upheld after an expected appeal to the Supreme Court, will prevent Bolsonaro from running in the next presidential election, scheduled for 2026.

The populist former president will also be banned from seeking any lower office.

Zoom in: The ruling is based on Bolsonaro’s baseless claims in the lead-up to last October’s election — which he narrowly lost in a run-off — that Brazil’s electronic voting system could be rigged against him.

After the election, Bolsonaro’s supporters stormed the presidential palace and other government buildings. An investigation into allegedincitement of the rioters by Bolsonaro is ongoing.

Bolsonaro has denied any responsibility for the riot and accused the courts of political persecution.

“For the love of God, what kind of democracy is this? Why can’t I criticize the voting system?” he said in a recent radio interview, per WSJ.

What to watch: Pro-Bolsonaro members of Congress are preparing a bill to lift the ban, though critics — including Brazil’s justice minister — argue that would be unconstitutional.

Bolsonaro has also been caught up in other investigations, including a probe into the spread of disinformation online and another into the alleged procurement of fake vaccine cards.

Even before the ruling, it was unclear whether Bolsonaro would try to return to front-line politics, or simply continue to serve as the unofficial leader of the nationalist right.

Don’t forget, Infowars relies on YOUR SUPPORT! In order to continue funding this independent operation, we urge you to visit the Infowars Store where you can fund the battle against globalism by purchasing great products such as dietary supplements, air and water filters, books, t-shirts, survival gear and much more.


Thursday, June 29, 2023

Robert F. Kennedy Jrs impressive first televised town hall

NewsNation’s 90-minute town hall broadcast live from Chicago Wednesday with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was an intellectually stimulating and emotionally moving event.


COVID VACCINE Considerations

Most of the links below are from medical journals, the FDA, CDC, and other entities that generally support vaccination, yet the information in this article shows how EXTREMELY RISKY the COVID-19 vaccines are. This is the article that was lied about by USA Today on 4/27/2021.


Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Liberals Are Tyrannical Imperialists: Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix

In just a few years Democrats flipped from freaking out about Nazis, shrieking that Trump was going to start a nuclear war, and denying US election results to cheering for Nazis, demanding more nuclear brinkmanship, and accusing anyone who denies election results of treason.


BARDA Subverts Licensed Regulated Pharmacy Distribution for Covid Countermeasures and 70 Other Products

Link to FOIAed Standard Operating Procedure from BARDA. I have a video recording from a public seminar from November 2022 where BARDA employee Tremel Faison brags that BARDA accepted and QA-ed all covid “vaccine” doses in the US.


Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Pandemic Leaders Were Biodefense Puppets And Profiteers

Pandemic Leaders Were Biodefense Puppets And Profiteers

Authored by Debbie Lerman via The Brownstone Institute,

Scandalous incompetence. Profound stupidity. Astounding errors. This is how many analysts – including Dr. Vinay PrasadDr. Scott Atlas, and popular Substack commentator eugyppius – explain how leading public health experts could prescribe so many terrible pandemic response policies.

And it’s true: the so-called experts certainly have made themselves look foolish over the last three years: Public health leaders like Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci make false claims, or contradict themselves repeatedly, on subjects related to the pandemic response, while leading scientists, like Peter Hotez in the US and Christian Drosten in Germany, are equally susceptible to such flip-flops and lies. Then there are the internationally renowned medical researchers, like Eric Topol, who repeatedly commit obvious errors in interpreting Covid-related research studies. [ref]

All of these figures publicly and aggressively promoted anti-public health policies, including universal masking, social distancing, mass testing and quarantining of healthy people, lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

It seems like an open-and-shut case: Dumb policies, dumb people in charge of those policies. 

This might be true in a few individual cases of public health or medical leaders who really are incapable of understanding even high school level science. However, if we look at leading pandemic public health and medical experts as a group – a group consisting of the most powerful, widely published, and well-paid researchers and scientists in the world – that simple explanation sounds much less convincing. 

Even if you believe that most medical researchers are shills for pharmaceutical companies and that scientists rarely break new ground anymore, I think you’d be hard-pressed to claim that they lack basic analytical skills or a solid educational background in the areas they’ve studied. Most doctors and scientists with advanced degrees know how to analyze simple scientific documents and understand basic data. 

Additionally, those doctors and public health professionals who were deemed experts during the pandemic were also clever enough to have climbed the academic, scientific, and/or government ladders to the highest levels.

They might be unscrupulous, sycophantic, greedy, or power-mongering. You might think they make bad moral or ethical decisions. But it defies logic to say that every single one of them understands simple scientific data less than, say, someone like me or you. In fact, I find that to be a facile, superficial judgment that does not get to the root cause of their seemingly stupid, incompetent behavior.

Returning to some specific examples, I would argue that it is irrational to conclude, as Dr. Prasad did, that someone like Dr. Topol, Founder and Director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, who has published over 1,300 peer-reviewed articles and is one of the top 10 most cited researchers in medicine [ref] cannot read research papers “at a high level.” And it is equally unlikely that Anthony Fauci, who managed to ascend and remain atop the highest scientific perch in the federal government for many decades, controlling billions of dollars in research grants [ref], was too dumb to know that masks don’t stop viruses.

There must, therefore, be a different reason why all the top pro-lockdown scientists and public health experts – in perfect lockstep – suddenly started (and continue to this day) to misread studies and advocate policies that they had claimed in the past were unnecessary, making themselves look like fools.

Public health experts were messengers for the biodefense response

The most crucial single fact to know and remember when trying to understand the craziness of Covid times is this:

The public health experts were not responsible for pandemic response policy. The military-intelligence-biodefense leadership was in charge.

In previous articles, I examined in great detail the government documents that show how standard tenets of public health pandemic management were abruptly and secretly thrown out during Covid. The most startling switch was the replacement of the public health agencies by the National Security Council and Department of Homeland Security at the helm of pandemic policy and planning.

As part of the secret switch, all communications – defined in every previous pandemic planning document as the responsibility of the CDC – were taken over by the National Security Council under the auspices of the White House Task Force. The CDC was not even allowed to hold its own press conferences!

 As a Senate report from December 2022 notes:

From March through June 2020, CDC was not permitted to conduct public briefings, despite multiple requests by the agency and CDC media requests were “rarely cleared.” HHS stated that by early April 2020, “after several attempts to get approvals,” its Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs “stopped asking” the White House “for a while.” (p. 8)

When public health and medical experts blanketed the airwaves and Internet with “recommendations” urging universal masking, mass testing and quarantining of asymptomatic people, vaccine mandates, and other anti-public health policies – or when they promoted obviously flawed studies that supported the quarantine-until-vaccine biodefense agenda – they were not doing so because they were dumb, incompetent, or misguided. 

They were performing the role that the leaders of the national security/biodefense response gave them: to be the trusted public face that made people believe quarantine-until-vaccine was a legitimate public health response. 

Why did public health leaders go along with the biodefense agenda?

We have to imagine ourselves in the position of public health and medical experts at top government positions when the intelligence-military-biodefense network took over the pandemic response. 

What would you do if you were a government employee, or a scientist dependent on government grants, and you were told that the quarantine-until-vaccine policy was actually the only way to deal with this particular engineered potential bioweapon?

How would you behave if an unprecedented event in human history happened on your watch: an engineered virus designed as a potential bioweapon was spreading around the world, and the people who designed it told you that terrifying the entire population into locking down and waiting for a vaccine was the only way to stop it from killing many millions? 

More mundanely, if your position and power depended on going along with whatever the powers-that-be in the NSC and DHS told you to do – if your job and livelihood were on the line – would you go against the narrative and risk losing it all?

And, finally, in a more venal vain: what if you stood to gain a lot more money and/or power by advocating for policies that might not be the gold standard of public health, but that you told yourself could bring about major innovations (vaccines/countermeasures) that would save humanity from future pandemics?

We know how the most prominent Covid “experts” answered those questions. Not because they were dumb, but because they had a lot to lose and/or a lot to gain by going along with the biodefense narrative – and they were told millions would die if they failed to do so.

Why understanding the motives of public health leaders during Covid is so important

Paradoxically, deeming public health experts stupid and incompetent actually reinforces the consensus narrative: that lockdowns and vaccines were part of a public health plan. In this reading, the response may have been terrible, or it may have gone awry, but it was still just a stupid public health plan designed by incompetent public health leaders.

Such a conclusion leads to calls for misguided and necessarily ineffectual solutions: Even if we replaced every single HHS employee or defunded the HHS or even the WHO altogether, we would not solve the problem and would be poised to repeat the entire pandemic fiasco all over again.

The only way to avoid such repetition is to recognize the Covid catastrophe for what it was: an international counterterrorism effort focused myopically on lockdowns and vaccines, to the exclusion of all traditional and time-tested public health protocols.

We need to wake up to the fact that, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (if not earlier), we have ceded control of the agencies that are supposed to be in charge of public health to an international military-intelligence-pharmaceutical cartel. 

This “public-private partnership” of bioterrorism experts and vaccine developers is not interested in public health at all, except as a cover for their very secret and very lucrative biowarfare research and countermeasure development.

Public health was shunted aside during the Covid pandemic, and the public health leaders were used as trusted “experts” to convey biowarfare edicts to the population. Their cooperation does not reflect stupidity or incompetence. Making such claims contributes to the coverup of the much more sinister and dangerous transfer of power that their seemingly foolish behavior was meant to hide.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/27/2023 - 18:05


Watch "LIVE: Democratic Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Delivers Foreign Policy Speech" on YouTube

Why Is the Establishment So Scared of RFK Jr.?

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you'll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item.


Public health emergencies are camouflaged power grabs.

Jan. 13, 2023 - Abstract, US Government State-sponsored bioterrorism (PDF) May 22, 2023 - Paper, Securitisation of public health law, US origin (PDF) June 14, 2023 - Public health emergencies are camouflaged power grabs, slide deck (PDF) Related Bailiwick posts: Jan.


Fear and Loathing in the City of Westminster

Our descent into City Airport was like the drop-ship scene in the movie Aliens. The BA CityFlyer Embraer 190, a narrow-body twin-engine airliner, rolled over into a 40-degree bank and started bucking like a mechanical bull. Simulated “chimes” began chiming frantically.


Sasha Latypova Lays Bare The Unprecedented and Bizarre Details Of How The Government and Military Commandeered Production Of Covid Vaccines In Jaw Dropping Interview With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

—Sasha Latypova Among the revelations: —A complete disabling of normal corporate recall of dangerous products following safety flag/signal—after 65 deaths and 3,000 adverse events from a single lot.


Monday, June 26, 2023

Patriot Front unmasked as FEDS pretending to be white supremacists to help the state crack down on (what they call) "the right"the latest twist on Operation Gladio which did that to the left

Here’s “Joe Biden” trying to look like he knows what he’s saying, as he calls white supremacy “the greatest threat” to the United States today: Now, if our schools (including colleges and universities) taught history, and not the pieties that fill the textbooks (however “woke” such


A Catastrophic Implosion... Of The Rule Of Law

A Catastrophic Implosion... Of The Rule Of Law

Authored by Roger Kimball via American Greatness,

Instead of proper rule of law we are living with that Orwellian alternative, Our Rule of Law - an arbitrary enforcement of the laws and use of the coercive power of the state...

Like some other commentators, I have in recent years several times quoted a famous exchange from Ernest Hemingway’s first novel, The Sun Also RisesRecent developments in the Biden family money laundering scheme, the implosion of a boutique underwater expedition to the Titanic, and a possible coup in Russia prompt me to wheel it out once again.

“‘How did you go bankrupt?’ Bill asked. ‘Two ways,’ Mike said. ‘Gradually, then suddenly.’”

It fits the long-running drama over Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell, I think.

Miranda Devine broke news of that scandal in the New York Post in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. It languished in the doldrums of official nonrecognition for years as the regime went into overdrive to keep people, especially voters, from paying any attention to it. 

Gradually, however, the truth leaked out. First, the authenticity of the laptop was acknowledged. Turns out it was not “Russian disinformation,” as those 51 intelligence experts insisted. Nope, it belonged to Hunter all right. At first, the public was titillated by all the sex-drugs-and-rock-n-roll that pervaded that digital trove. Gradually, very gradually, however, the publicly important stuff—the money angle with news of foreign payments apparently to dear-old-dad from various foreigners—began leaking out. 

Then suddenly, just this last week, the House Ways and Means Committee began dropping bombs.

Material from an IRS whistleblower—no, two IRS whistleblowers—got fed into the mix and we got such Hunter Biden classics as this WhatsApp message from July 2017 addressed to Henry Zhao, a member of the Chinese Communist Party and, wouldn’t you know it, a business partner of Hunter’s: 

I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment [the commitment being millions of the crispest] made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight, And, Z, fi [sic] get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.

I enjoyed reading that over the morning coffee while gazing at the accompanying photograph of Hunter all got up in black tie for a big to-do at the White House the other day. That was right after he, miraculously, managed to wangle the plea bargain of the century. He failed to report millions in income, yet the prosecutor agreed to reduce felony charges to misdemeanors and, essentially, to forget about the fact that Hunter lied on his application for a firearm, a felony. Nice work, Hunter!

There are some people who insist that we are still in the he-said she-said phase of this drama. It’s happened before. 

Remember, years ago, when FBI lovebirds Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had their little back and forth a few days after the Trump-Russia hoax got started? Page cooed to Strzok: “Trump should go f himself.” Strzok responded, “F Trump.” Two days later, Page texted, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok replied, “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” “We” being not just Peter and Lisa but also the FBI. Somehow, that got diluted and interpreted out of relevance, though, and the fact that the premier police power of the country interfered in a presidential election got swept under the proverbial rug.

It might happen this time, too. We have credible allegations galore, not only of Hunter’s lawbreaking, but his father’s. According to the whistleblower testimony that the House Ways and Means Committee just released, the Justice Department tipped off Hunter Biden about a plan to search his storage unit, thus allowing him to clean it out before the feds arrived. The Justice Department also declined to execute a search warrant of Joe Biden’s guest house when Hunter was living there. They hid allegations about foreign bribery from the IRS lawyers overseeing an investigation of Hunter’s finances and lost or “slow walked” other aspects of the government’s investigation into his tangled affairs for some five years.

Preferential treatment? Assuredly not! At least not according to our American Gothic Attorney General Merrick Garland. After this latest spate of revelations dropped into the news cycle and seemed to be getting traction, even in the legacy media, Garland held a press conference in which he said, in essence, if you criticize the Justice Department you are betraying “democracy.” 

It was an extraordinary performance. But here we are. Nancy Pelosi and others kept going on about Our Democracy™ when what they meant was “our oligarchy.” More recently, Joe Biden has been nattering on about “our children,” as if children belonged to the government. Now we have the attorney general of the United States insisting that the Justice Department dispenses justice impartially even though grandmothers with cancer who happened to traipse through the Capitol on January 6 are tossed into jail while Hunter Biden skates. The two-tier deployment of justice in this country is patent for all to see, but what are you going to believe, your lying eyes or the pronunciamentos of this gray-on-gray bureaucrat from hell? 

Yes, Nancy Pelosi was happy to substitute Our Democracy™ for democracy plain and simple. Now we have Merrick Garland attempting the same thing with the rule of law. That went out with the advent of predawn raids by the FBI on opponents of the regime. Instead we are living with that Orwellian alternative Our Rule of Law™, which is to say their arbitrary enforcement of the laws and use of the coercive power of the state. 

The end, as Hemingway’s character observed, came gradually at first. We’ve moved on now to the “suddenly” part. It’s not, I fancy, unlike what happened aboard that swank, if ultimately unseaworthy submersible, the part described in headlines everywhere as a “catastrophic implosion.” Descent by PlayStation was gradual until, suddenly, it wasn’t.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/25/2023 - 22:30


The Corruption of POTUS SCOTUS and SCROTUS

Until we reach that point of social transformation, we're passengers on a ship of state doomed by rampant, systemic corruption and the collapse of moral standards and the rule of law.

Political corruption isn't hard to define: confidentially leveraging the power of one's position in the State for private gain. This covers the spectrum of using State power for personal gain from freebies, bribes, sweetheart deals, obtaining insider information, revolving doors between private sector and state positions, influence-peddling, selling tax breaks, subsidies, permits, etc., bloated speaking fees and so on, in a nearly limitless profusion of private financial gains generated solely by one's position of power within the State--the legislative and regulatory government, central bank, military and judiciary--gains that are cloaked from public disclosure and scrutiny.

One example is employees in building-planning departments taking bribes from applicants to bypass lengthy permit reviews. Money changes hands privately to gain some state-issued benefit.

Public trust in institutions, the rule of law and basic fairness are all undermined by corruption. This is why even the hint of impropriety must be promptly investigated and the results made public.

But there is more to corruption than just investigating improprieties. The larger questions are:

1. Is corruption a rare occurrence or has it become business as usual, i.e. endemic, embedded, taken for granted as "the way things work"?

2. Is there any sense of sincere shame or wrong-doing when those reaping private gains from their positions in the State are publicly exposed? Or do the guilty disclaim any notions of sin or shame for betraying the Public Trust?

3. Are there two completely different Standards of Justice, Criminality and Punishment, one applied ferociously to the general public and another applied with the lightest of feathers to insiders, financial elites and the politically influential?

I submit that all three conditions are true: corruption is now BAU, business as usual; there is no sense of shame or wrongdoing when the corrupt are exposed, and there are two judicial standards, one for the bottom 99.9% and another for insiders, the well-connected, the influential, the politically protected and the super-wealthy, what I call America's Aristocracy or Royalty.

Consider the cover-ups and obstruction of justice swirling around the family of POTUS the President of the United States: "Blatant Political Corruption": The Rot In America's Democracy Explained In Under 1000 Words.

In a nation that regarded the Public Trust as sacred, even the hint of impropriety at this level of government would have sparked an immediate and thorough-going investigation, and calls for resignation and indictment.

Instead, nothing happens except the BAU of Corruption: the usual cover-ups, wrist-slaps for lesser violations, zero admission of guilt, zero display of shame, zero punishment.

Despite a flood of partisan weeping and gnashing of teeth, SCOTUS is equally without shame. That the highest levels of the judiciary are blind to the impropriety of accepting gifts from super-wealthy "friends" whose interests extend deep into the dockets of the Supreme Court is evidence of just how low the sanctity of the Public Trust has sunk.

Then there's SCROTUS: the Supremely Corrupt Royalty of the United States, the corporate bigshots, the lobbyists, the billionaires, the politically influential, the financially connected, and all the elites that are protected from consequence and therefore untouchable.

Consider the thousands of corporate fines imposed for fraud and other crimes: Corporate Settlements/Fines from the early 1990s to the present, compiled by Jon Morse. All wrist-slaps, as no corporate leaders served any prison time. The fines are just a cost of doing business for Corporate America's Royalty.

I've addressed the systemic rot of corruption in America for years: No Wrongdoing Here, Just 6,300 Corporate Fines and Settlements (May 2015)

Corruption Is Now Our Way of Life (October 5, 2020)

The corruption of the rule of law and the resulting decay of the Public Trust are not partisan issues. America's wealthy and powerful enrich themselves in a sandbox of corruption, regardless of their affiliations.

I've often referenced historian Peter Turchin's work. His latest book, End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration, outlines the dynamics that are dismantling America's future. Chief among these is the primary consequence of systemic corruption, soaring wealth-income inequality. Hope in "End Times": Peter Turchin's analysis of our coming collapse could help us avoid it:

For all its breadth and depth, there's a simple message at the core of "End Times": At the heart of our problems, Turchin writes, is "a perverse 'wealth pump' ... taking from the poor and giving to the rich," and we have to find a way to turn it off.

The core of corruption is the maximization of private gain over serving the Common Good and Public Interest. When power is sought primarily for private gain, the social fabric decays and unravels.

Critic and author Christopher Lasch described the decay of the social order when shame has vanished. In today's America, there is no sense of sin, guilt, shame or atonement. Any level of corruption is tolerated and excused, most perversely, "for the good of the country."

Lasch's last book, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996) lays bare the moral and political corruption of America's elites. The decades since have confirmed his analysis.

My own modest contribution to the topic, Global Crisis, National Renewal focuses on the need for a social revolution that radically transforms what is financially and politically acceptable to the populace. A tipping point must be reached where systemic corruption and its result, destabilizing inequality, are no longer acceptable.

Until we reach that point of social transformation, we're passengers on a ship of state doomed by rampant, systemic corruption and the collapse of the Public Trust, moral standards and the rule of law.

What's blatantly wrong is dismissed as normal. This encapsulates America's collapse.


SR-265.jpg My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century.

Read the first chapter for free (PDF)

Read excerpts of all three chapters

Podcast with Richard Bonugli: Self Reliance in the 21st Century (43 min)

My recent books:

The Asian Heroine Who Seduced Me (Novel) print $10.95, Kindle $6.95 Read an excerpt for free (PDF)

When You Can't Go On: Burnout, Reckoning and Renewal $18 print, $8.95 Kindle ebook; audiobook Read the first section for free (PDF)

Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $9.95, print $24, audiobook) Read Chapter One for free (PDF).

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).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake (Novel) $4.95 Kindle, $10.95 print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

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

Become a $1/month patron of my work via

Subscribe to my Substack for free

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, George B. ($10/month), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.


Thank you, Patrick M. ($5/month), for your splendidly generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Thank you, Bryan H. ($1/month), for your very generous pledge to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, Maggie M. ($6.15/month), for your outstandingly 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.


Sunday, June 25, 2023

Bodies as Consumer Goods

Historians of sexual behavior work in context, putting sex into the stream of societal and economic developments.


Are the Inmates Now Running the World?

For several years I’ve been turning over in my mind an idea that initially struck me as far-fetched, but now strikes me as a distinct possibility.


'Elite apostate' explains governments deal in 'power' not 'truth'

(Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash)

(Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash)

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire.]

By Charlie Tidmarsh
Real Clear Wire

Last month, the economist Jeffrey Sachs appeared on the Substack podcast Nonzero, hosted by the writer Robert Wright, to discuss American foreign policy failures in the post-Cold War world. Wright asked Sachs if he felt American journalism is in decline. Sachs—who, as the head of multiple UN nonprofits and director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development, is one of the most institutionally recognized figures in public intellectual lifesaid that it absolutely had, and then shared an anecdote. “I had a chat with a longtime friend of mine…a senior reporter at one of the most important newspapers,” he said, “and I said to him, ‘When I was young, I turned to your paper because of Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, and I loved it.’” According to Sachs, this nameless friend, who in a later appearance Sachs would identify as a senior New York Times reporter, replied, “That paper is so dead and gone, Jeff. You have to understand that.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND's Email News Alerts!

Sachs spoke with the reporter last September. The issue that provoked the reporter’s comments was the recent bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines and its subsequent coverage in the media. In the days and weeks after the attack, a flurry of conjecture about who was responsible dominated mainstream outlets, with CNN and the New York Times echoing U.S. and European government allegations that Russia had sabotaged its own piece of critical infrastructure in a dramatic bid to turn European favor against Ukraine. Sachs, who worked closely with Mikhail Gorbachev and knows his way around U.S.-Russia relations, read these reports and called his friend: “The U.S did it!” he said. “Why is your paper saying today that Russia did it?” The reporter responded, “Of course the U.S did it. Who else? But come on, Jeff. The editor isn’t interested in that.”

In relating these stories, Sachs expressed a view shared by a coalescing group of anti-establishment thinkers, journalists, pundits, and academics: that the mainstream media in the United States has been corrupted beyond repair and is so deeply beholden to U.S. intelligence and security interests as to be of little journalistic value. Sachs has been increasingly vocal about this over the last year, as the war in Ukraine—the fault for which he places squarely at the feet of the United States and its decades of NATO bellicosity, even blaming specific State Department operatives for the 2014 ouster of Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych—escalates shockingly, with little mainstream media attention given to potential American culpability in provoking and prolonging the bloodshed.

Sachs is not the most vociferous critic of the Biden administration, the American foreign policy establishment, or the corporate media. Where commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Tucker Carlson, and Noam Chomsky are quick to make strong claims about deep-state conspiracy and propaganda, Sachs often demurs. “I know all the theories [for the degradation of American journalism],” he said in a recent appearance on Greenwald’s System Update news show. “Money, advertising, power. But why, I don’t fully understand.” Greenwald routinely takes a harder line. He would go on in that conversation to say that “[the New York Times] is in another universe now in terms of their willingness to write down whatever the CIA wants them to say, even when they know it’s false.”

What distinguishes Sachs among this burgeoning anti-establishment cohort is the extent of his establishment bona fides: UN appointments, Covid-19 commission assignments, World Bank and IMF advising, and innumerable plaudits as one of his generation’s top economic minds. Vanity Fair included him in their 2008 list of the 100 members of the “New Establishment.” This has leant a whistleblowing-like quality to his criticisms of the United States and its behavior both at home and abroad. Having been instrumental to some of the most consequential diplomatic and economic negotiations of the last 40 years, including the structural transition from communist central planning to market economies in numerous post-Soviet bloc countries and Latin America, Sachs is a man whom people listen to when he says that the U.S. is lying or acting in bad faith.

While Sachs’s new role as the establishment’s contrarian inner critic was solidified by the war in Ukraine, it was birthed during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic. In spring 2020, just months after the outbreak began, Sachs was tapped by Lancet editor Richard Horton to serve as chair of the medical journal’s committee investigating the origin of the virus. At the time, it was uncontroversial in both Washington and the mainstream media to entertain the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 had leaked from a high-security lab or research institution. Sachs had strongly opposed this theory (and then-President Trump’s flirtation with it), but he accepted the position with an “open mind” and went on to staff the committee, appointing his colleague at Columbia, Peter Daszak, to head the task force. The group was to produce a report on the various theories of Covid origin—zoonosis and lab-leak, primarily—and assess their validity.

By the summer of that year, Sachs was reevaluating his position on the lab-leak theory. In his telling, he had been alerted by a few “top scientists” to certain biological signatures of the virus that indicated potential laboratory manipulation; he had also been made aware of an NIH grant to the New York nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance that was used to perform so-called gain-of-function viral experiments on mice in Wuhan. Daszak was, and remains, president of the EcoHealth Alliance. When Sachs asked the new Covid-19 Commission task force leader to disclose the precise nature of the work he had funded in Wuhan, Daszak refused, on advice from his lawyer.

Reports differ here. Sachs claims to have fired Daszak immediately, while Daszak claims to have stepped down. Either way, in June 2021, Daszak was no longer leading the origins task force, and Sachs was thoroughly convinced that the conflicts of interest (such as those meticulously documented by Nicholas Wade in a May 2021 essay) at play in the search for the origin of the virus ran so deep that the Commission was functionally compromised; he shut it down in September 2021, and he is now one of the leading voices against the censorship and stigmatization of the lab-leak story. To many people skeptical of our public health officials’ response to Covid, this was one of the most meaningful public breaks from the institutional narrative solidifying at the time. Since the Lancet debacle, Daszak has become the face of a catastrophically mishandled pandemic response.

One way to characterize Sachs’s commitments to government accountability and freedom of speech is that they are rooted in a deep institutional memory. On the war in Ukraine, he seems animated by the blatant and well-documented attempts at regime change and invasion executed by the U.S. government—in Vietnam, Iraq, and Syria—as well as the countless broken promises made to Russia in the wake of the Cold War (promises that Sachs was instrumental in negotiating). Few deny, with the benefit of hindsight, the disastrous claims made about Saddam Hussein’s connection to Al-Qaeda and the presence of WMDs in Iraq that the media sold to the American public before the invasion in 2003. However uneasy some may feel hearing criticism of continued U.S. aid to Ukraine as that country continues to suffer in a brutal invasion, Sachs is attempting to hold America accountable for the mistakes it has made in the recent past. These mistakes were enabled in large part by a complicit press, overeager to parrot government narratives.

For his trouble, Sachs has swiftly been branded a conspiracist, a Putin stooge, and a useful idiot. Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who Sachs and Greenwald remind us, was one of the loudest champions for the invasion of Iraq, recently published an essay deeming Sachs “intellectually bankrupt.” It’s a tactic that has become almost banal at this point: when an erstwhile ally drifts too far outside of the acceptable window of discourse, declare him no longer worth listening to.

WND is now on Trump's Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews

“I grew up in the Vietnam War era, in the Kennedy assassination era, in Watergate. Governments lie for a living,” Sachs said to New York magazine in March of this year. “That’s not conspiracy theory; that is how governments operate because they deal in power. They don’t deal in truth.” Sachs may sometimes speak with undue certainty on matters still unsettled, but he is playing the role of a principled if nagging inner conscience, and we need more public figures to do the same.

This article was originally published by RealClearBooks and made available via RealClearWire.SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

The post 'Elite apostate' explains governments deal in 'power,' not 'truth' appeared first on WND.