SOME FURTHER SINS OF EVE

    This week, the Center for Disease Control issued another statistic, showing that for the second straight year, Life Expectancy rates in the exceptional United States have dropped. This is the first time since the Kennedy Administration that there has been a consecutive yearly decline. The Junta blames these trends on the Scamdemic despite the CDC's own admission to lying about the figures. The Scamdemic also doesn't account for why the death rate among women has remained relatively stable while the numbers among men are falling radically. 

   While the Whacko Left Wing is probably high-fiving each other over the news of more male deaths, some elements on the Right are breaking out into their "O tempora! O mores!" routine. After doing absolutely nothing for the last few decades to resist the increasing emasculation of American culture, they've suddenly discovered that the widespread marginalization of men might actually be a significant social issue. As usual, they get it all wrong in their assessments. Rather than examining their own failures, they blame it all on women; as if male apathy and complacency had nothing to with contributing to any of it. 

   Dennis Prager, for example, who's been teetering delicately on a metaphorical balance-beam between Neoconservatism and Red Pill level neurosis, finally has toppled over into the abyss with his latest article 'Women Are Disproportionately Hurting Our Country.'  Prager is wailing loudly that (mostly radical feminist) women have hijacked our cultural institutions. This in spite of the fact that many Feminists seem a bit displeased with the Junta for throwing them overboard in favor of the Homo Agenda. 

   Prager's argument seems to center on the premise that while men have learned to curb their innate aggressiveness (though it's passing strange that he believes curbing it is a desirable goal) women haven't learned to tame their innate emotionalism. He doesn't really explain though how feminine emotionalism automatically translates into Radical Leftist Activism. (There's certainly no shortage of emotionally-driven females on the Right). He also seems to miss the obvious point that suppressing male tendencies towards aggression, competitiveness, and healthy sexuality is the basic cause of all of the things that he is complaining about. 

     Back when we actually had a reliable social policy, these 'innate male aggressions' that Prager complains about were sublimated into socially useful pursuits. Certain interests began seeing a problem with this, and they promoted Radical Feminism---which until the mid-1970s was nothing more than a crackpot fringe-movement. One group with an interest in 'deconstructing' masculinity was the Corporate Deep State, who realized that men supporting a family were more likely to do things like unionize---demanding a living wage, better working conditions, and opposing things like offshoring. Flooding the workplace with women drove down wages and facilitated the (totally coordinated) 'transition' to a service-based economy. Conservative men didn't oppose any of this: it was good for the bottom line and stakeholders. 

   Another group supporting Radical Feminism were the weaker, less productive, and less competent men. To them, elevating the so-called 'status of women' was a means of social levelling---cutting their more capable and responsible peers down to size. As usual in today's America, greed and envy combined to bring about a disastrous situation.

    

   Prager totally ignores the role of men in elevating women who (often by necessity) are being shoved into social roles for which they aren't suited---and then claims that women are responsible for failure. He disingenuously tells us that "young children are prematurely sexualized—they are, for example, exposed to Drag Queen Story Hour in class and in local libraries from the age of 5. These feature a man dressed as a woman reading and dancing for them. And who is facilitating all of this? In virtually every case, a woman. Ninety-two percent of kindergarten teachers are women, 75 percent of all teachers are women and 85 percent of librarians are women." Somehow, it's escaped his attention that 100% of drag queens are male: or that we had about the same percentages female teachers and librarians in 1980 when these things weren't tolerated. 

   He continues: "And they are teaching young people to despise their country (the creator of the poisonous '1619 Project' is a woman), to feel guilty about their 'white privilege' or to think of themselves as victims if they are black. Even worse, they are indoctrinating them in 'nonbinary' thinking regarding sex and gender...These ideas originated in university gender studies and women’s studies departments, nearly all of whose professors are female." True, but these university departments originated in schools which weren't run by women and mostly still aren't. They've also been funded by a multiplicity of federal, state, and local governments who haven't sought even the slightest accountability. 

     "Last week an organization called Physicians for Reproductive Health published an open letter to the nation’s reporters and news editors, demanding they censor anti-abortion activists" Prager continues, “the open letter was signed by more than 600 medical doctors and other health care professionals. Nearly every signatory was a woman. And all four of the listed leaders of Physicians for Reproductive Health are women." And all nine of the Supreme Court Justices who enacted Roe vs. Wade in 1973 were men, and Planned Parenthood was founded by Bill Gates' father. Prager seems to be arguing a la Vox Day that women couldn't wait for legal abortion back then. We've always had a number of women in the medical profession, especially in nursing; but most were like Dr. Mary Jones---who pioneered American Obstetrics techniques---and who stated that "the woman who seeks the destruction of her own child deceives herself, darkens her soul, and casts down her whole moral existence.”  

    This is a major problem with Prager's line of reasoning: he seems to be taking a reductionist view of female psychology that makes his whole article sound like typical Manosphere poppycock. It's almost like he's channelling the ghost of Dalrock, he states that "Women clergy have been at the vanguard of pushing Christianity and Judaism to the left, leaving mainstream churches and synagogues increasingly empty. Of course, the increasingly feminized male clergy go along with their female colleagues." Much like Rollo Tomassi's assertion that the Holy Spirit has been supplanted by the so-called 'Feminine Imperative.' It happens awkwardly enough for Prager and Tomassi however that only about 1 in 8 denominations that allow it have female clergy. Catholics, Moslems, and Orthodox Jews don't even ordain women. 

   Prager makes the highly dubious assertion that "women are disproportionately supportive of cancel culture" though I seem to recall male Corporate Oligarchs, Tech Lords, Media Moguls, and Mad Scientists like Fauci mostly leading that charge. If we weren't starting to question Prager's sanity already, he drops this bombshell:

  "Teachers and their unions did great damage to young people during COVID-19. They demanded—because of their hypochondria and an apparent inability to apply reason to COVID-19 risk—that schools be closed for nearly two years. Teachers unions in big cities threatened to go on strike if schools opened...The unions are overwhelmingly composed of women members and women leaders."

    

    On the contrary, this was a time (and sadly not the only one) where the so-called 'Conservatives' went even further than the Radical Left. Frankly, I was hoping that public schools would never open again and that the supposed 'party of school choice' would seize the opportunity to push for more parental control. But, no; Prager and his ilk showed their true colors and forced Americans back into the dysfunctional system in spite of opposition from the Left. And this completes the Circular Reasoning of his whole thesis. He and his fellow Neocons have marginalized men in society and set women up to fail---now he blames women essentially for not manning up and not behaving more like men should have been doing.

   There is no "sin of Eve" but it's the same as it was from the beginning. When Adam finished eating the fruit, and God asked why he'd disobeyed His commandment to protect the Garden he replied: "She made me do it!" That excuse didn't work for Adam and it won't work for modern Neocons or Red Pills either. 

   

   

DO WE NEED A MANIFESTO, TOO?

   There's been a recent controversy among some Conservative websites and pundits because of a manifesto recently published by the Edmund Burke Foundation. On the surface, many of the principles appear appealing. That is, on the surface anyway. The document purports to unite Conservatives under the following preamble:

  "We see the tradition of independent, self-governed nations as the foundation for restoring a proper public orientation toward patriotism and courage, honor and loyalty, religion and wisdom, congregation and family, man and woman, the sabbath and the sacred, and reason and justice. We are conservatives because we see such virtues as essential to sustaining our civilization. We see such a restoration as the prerequisite for recovering and maintaining our freedom, security, and prosperity.

  "We emphasize the idea of the nation because we see a world of independent nations—each pursuing its own national interests and upholding national traditions that are its own—as the only genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe."

   In the first place, it is somewhat curious that an organization headquartered in the Hague, run mostly by Jews, and heavily funded by Pfizer and Microsoft and named for a notorious flatterer of monarchy should presume to pontificate to American Christians on proper ideology. 

      Besides presuming to speak for all Conservatives, it's rather noteworthy that Individual Rights are not mentioned in the Preamble, nor really anywhere else in the document. In other words, what the Foundation is proposing is establishing a "genuine alternative to universalist ideologies now seeking to impose a homogenizing, locality-destroying imperium over the entire globe" by imposing one of its own. 

    One can see this authoritarian tendency by overlooking some of the flowery propaganda and noting that most of their solutions strongly imply a State-run mechanism of some sort. Examples:

  On States' Rights: "However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order."

  On Religious Freedom: "Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private." (Query: how does the State enforce 'honoring' these values among private institutions?)

  On Self-Government: "All agree that the repair and improvement of national legal traditions and institutions is at times necessary. But necessary change must take place through the law. This is how we preserve our national traditions and our nation itself." 

  On Economic Freedom: "A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare." (Query: who defines what is economically in the national interest?") 

  On Public Education: "We recognize that most universities are at this point partisan and globalist in orientation and vehemently opposed to nationalist and conservative ideas. Such institutions do not deserve taxpayer support unless they rededicate themselves to the national interest. Education policy should serve manifest national needs." (So much for School Choice, which I was always thought was a Conservative position.)

   On the Family: "Economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child-raising are priorities of the highest order." (True: but how is the power of the State going to accomplish this? Russia has had some good results with tax-breaks, subsidies for stay-at-home mothers, and other incentives, but Russian society is already fairly family-oriented and American society is not; as evidenced by their own admission that "Among the causes are an unconstrained individualism that regards children as a burden, while encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life." Besides that, Point 2 of the Manifesto makes it clear that that the authors don't like President Putin very much.) 

  On Race-Relations: "The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. The nationalism we espouse respects, and indeed combines, the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole." (Again, who is to decide the 'Common Good?' Juxtaposed against their position on immigration which states "We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies," it would seem that the authors have some fairly strong views about what constitutes 'assimiliation' although they don't define it.)

    Basically this document reads about like a Neocon revision of the World Economic Forum's principles: which isn't surprising considering that Pfizer and Microsoft are among the WEF's 'Top 100 Strategic Partners'---as is PayPal, whose founder Peter Thiel is among the Manifesto's signatories. Many of the signatories work for media outlets which are subsidiaries of large conglomerates, and at least 12 of them are foreign nationals. 

      The authors give considerable lip-service against crony-capitalism but much of what they say throughout the document throws a shade of suspicion on their sincerity. After the obligatory Russia-and-China-bashing, they state that "we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation, which sought to gain power, influence, and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image" they inform us that "We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggression... We support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties,{nota bene} defensive alliances,{nota bene} and other common projects that respect the independence of their members." 

    Somehow, we don't get the feeling that this type of nationalism applies to whomever the totally non-crony capitalists at the Burke Foundation consider 'security risks.' especially considering that they all call for "a Cold War-type program modeled on DARPA, the “moon-shot,” and SDI is needed to focus large-scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military applications." 

   Granted, we do need upgrades of our manufacturing system (and our infrastructure in general); but the fact that we've fallen behind China in our capabilities is precisely because we keep ploughing funding into the Military-Industrial Complex. As we're writing this today---August 24th---a news headline reads that the Junta is spending another $3,000,000,000 on aid to prop up the Zelensky Regime in Kiev. Another several billion is about to authorized to prop up Taiwan---which was doing just fine economically until the Junta provoked China into imposing sanctions. 

   Consider what would have happened if all of the military expenditures dumped into black holes like Ukraine, Taiwan, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Israel, NATO and who-knows-where-else had actually been spent on things like upgrading American roads, bridges, canals, ports, electric grids, flood control, desalination plants, wastewater treatment, high-speed rail---the list goes on. 

   These issues, though, are probably considered 'socialist' "which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan." The Security State and the Military-Industrial Complex don't seem to count in this equation, however. Again, it is a matter of considering the source. Especially when some of the signatories include former Senator Jim DeMint and a few of his henchmen from the Conservative Partnership Institute, a Beltway lobbying firm; and Charlie Kirk of the shady Turning Point USA, which is among some of the Controlled Opposition groups presumed to be involved in setting up the January 6th false flag (and which portrays itself as pro-Trump while hobnobbing with RINOs like Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, and Ted Cruz). Well-known Deep State cutouts like the Hudson Institute, the Hoover Institute, and the Claremont Institute are also represented.

    The reality is that Conservatives don't need a manifesto. Our Declaration of Independence spelled out for us that we have inalienable Rights---given us by a Higher Authority than government---to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also spells out that we are free to choose which governmental policies best secure those Rights. This allows for a free exchange of ideas, experimenting with policies that work and rejecting those that don't. While the Constitution does provide a set of rules on operational aspects of the government, we are not and were never intended to be a top-down society run by arrogant bureaucrats, smug pseudo-intellectuals, and certainly not by financial Oligarchs who are, in reality, no different in substance than the Monarchy our forefathers overthrew. Lest anyone suppose that the WEF/Great Reset brand of neo-feudalism is exclusive to the Left, guess again.  

   For that matter, our Constitution strictly opposes any kind of 'Purity' Tests, Loyalty Oaths, which manifestoes like these are very much advocating. Another ominous statement in this Manifesto reads: "We recommend a drastic reduction in the...policy-making judiciary that displaces legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values."  This sounds suspiciously close to bringing back the Colonial-Era Bills of Attainder which are forbidden by Article 1, Sec. 9-10 of the Constitution.  

  The way back to a Conservative society starts at the basics: self-government. The American people---the Right in particular---have completely failed to safeguard our institutions and culture which, in a free society means taking personal responsibility and not deferring every aspect of ones life to whatever the New Normal happens to be. Thus it becomes a simple matter for tyrants to control the 'narrative' which is all that this Manifesto is attempting to do. What the Right needs to do is some serious soul-searching, get off of their couches, and stop relying on the government to solve all of their problems.

    

PSEUDOSKEPTICISM

    Many readers probably wouldn't guess the personal anecdote that I'm about to share: but, believe it or not, I was actually born in farming country and spent most of my early childhood on/around farms. I actually saw phenomena like we hear described today in certain media dedicated to the 'paranormal': crop circles, mutilated cattle, footprints and signs of various supposed cryptids---and other quite a few unexplainable events. 

    These types of events always generated a lot of local controversy, and occasionally made the local TV news. It never quite got to the point where military units suddenly started showing up, but Forest Rangers and the USDA Extension Office were interviewed and the officials usually ended up shrugging their shoulders and flatly stated that they didn't have an explanation (We had a lot more truthful government back then). The TV Stations would always then interview the obligatory 'skeptic'---usually at some academic institution. I think that we all know the type: the smug smile, the condescending attitude, the beady eyes. It always seemed as though no matter how these people were filmed, they were always looking (literally) down their noses at the reporters. In case anyone is wondering, they mostly attributed such events to 'lightning' no matter how absurd such an explanation really was.

    Since the advent of the Internet, these types have proliferated: in fact, they've even expanded into a new sub-category known as fact-checkers. However much they boast of their 'objectivity' and 'critical thinking', there are two things that most Skeptics never doubt:

    1. Their own intellectual superiority to the rest of mankind; and 

    2. The so-called 'Scientific Consensus' regardless of how many other scientists dissent from the official narrative. 

    It's gotten so bad that even Rationalwiki has a whole section devoted to it. The article's worth a read despite the irony of it coming from a source that doesn't always follow some of the principles that the article itself advocates. 

  "The correct, though less common, use of the term "pseudoskepticism" refers to those who declare themselves merely "skeptical" of a concept, but in reality would not be convinced by any evidence...This essentially is cloaked Denialism as there is a vast amount of real evidence which these pseudoskeptics wilfully ignore. Saying 'I am skeptical of X' seems more reasonable than saying 'I don't accept X and never will regardless of the evidence', even if the latter is more accurate.

  "Real skeptics are always prepared to change their positions based on new evidence, consistent with the scientific method. An example is Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which has gone through a number of revisions as to whether it applies or not---thus making skeptics who changed their mind on that issue when the scientific consensus changed, prima facie real skeptics. Clearly, if people change their mind on a topic, that is a positive defense against an accusation that they will not change their mind on that topic."

   This definition is basically correct, but what it doesn't take into account is the corruption of scientific consensus which is rife in our times. The author seems to believe that the same criteria for a 'scientific consensus' that existed in Einstein's era exists in ours. Albert Einstein lived in a time when some of the greatest scientists were intellectual entrepreneurs, so to speak, and weren't even products of the university system. Comparing the Scientific Consensus of today with what existed in the 19th Century is like those Economists who compare our postmodern Corporate Oligarchs to the industrial and financial leaders of that period who started out as coal-stokers and bank clerks and ended up millionaire owners of steel plants and large banks. We don't live in a Meritocracy any longer, and the scientific field is no exception. 

   

     Since the end of the Second World War, scientific research increasingly has been tied to funding---primarily from the Government and today even more heavily upon Corporations and the front-groups they set up for such 'charitable' purposes. In the beginning this system had a legitimate purpose. As taxpayer-funded institutions, the Government often turned to the universities for their expertise in developing military technology, space-exploration, alternative energy systems, computing technology, etc. Private Corporations typically had their own Research and Development Divisions, but would occasionally hire university professors as consultants. 

   However, as time went on, politicians learned that they could tie funding for research to produce outcomes favorable to themselves or the Vested Interests whom they represented. Likewise, following the principles of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Corporatists found that they could eliminate R & D Departments and increase profits to their stakeholders by dropping hefty tax-deductible financial gifts upon Academia and get their work done at a much lower cost---sort of a backdoor subsidization program where Big Business can gouge both taxpayer and consumer. As one anonymous writer explained: 

   Rigged science refers to the process of hindering free exploration by setting expected goals for monetary gains and survival of scientists, hiring opportunistic individuals, omitting data, avoiding the bigger picture that would contradict or put in perspective the rigged outcome.The scientific spirit, which is based on the willingness to put hypotheses to the test and let them be falsified is perverted by subjecting 'heretics' to character assassination and psychological warfare often supported by the commercially-controlled media and {the threat of} cut off funds. Also, increasingly, hypotheses are formulated in such a way, that they can not by falsified, i.e. in medicine and climate research. From a scientific POV these are ideologies rather than hypotheses."

   In contrast, consider the rather inquisitorial spirit promoted by pediatrician Peter Hotez and published in the respected journal, The Scientific American. Hotez, it should be noted, received a doctorate from Rockefeller University and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences---both of which have varying connections to such wholly disinterested and objective organizations as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carlos Slim Foundation, and the never-Trump Koch Family Foundation. Scientific American is owned by media conglomerate Springer Publications (of whom we'll have more to say below):

    “Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats... Antiscience is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them.

   "Containing antiscience will require work and an interdisciplinary approach. For innovative and comprehensive solutions, we might look at interagency task forces in the U.S. government or among the agencies of the United Nations...We must be prepared to implement a sophisticated infrastructure to counteract this, similar to what we have already done for more established global threats. Antiscience is now a large and formidable security issue."

    Let us all hope this is willingness to put hypotheses to the test and let them be falsified enough!

    The corollary to corruption in research stems also from the fact that this funding is largely based upon a given scientist's academic reputation---as reflected in his publications in peer-reviewed journals. Again, peer-review once served a useful purpose. It was a sort of self-policing mechanism---ironically in today's context---to keep vested interests and fake theories out of Academia. Peer-Review publishing today has become slightly more than a pay-to-play scheme and most of these publications have been subject to the same kind of industry hijacking that Federal and State Regulatory Agencies have.

   Three major media combines own half of the peer-reviewed journals: Wiley-Blackwell, Elsevier, and Springer Publishing. Wiley-Blackwell owns about 12% of these journals, but has a near-monopoly on textbook and encyclopedia publishing. Headquartered in New York, their CEO is Brian Napack, a former executive at Disney who headed Disney Educational Productions. In 2020, Napack gave a very Great Reset-friendly interview with the magazine EdTech, where he boasted of Wiley-Blackwell that "about half of the world's research flows through our platforms."

   Napack went on to describe a new innovative technology called MThree, which he bragged that Wiley-Blackwell would implement throughout Academia: "a truly innovative business that works with some of the most well-known corporations around the world to help them literally build the labor force talent they need to compete and win. We do this by working with client companies to identify their specific talent needs – say 100 mobile developers for a development shop in Toronto. Then, mthree directly recruits, trains and places talent directly into jobs fully prepared with the exact, company-specific skills that they need to succeed." And naturally Wiley-Blackwell is quite 'woke:'

  "In recent months, like many companies and organizations, we’ve been doing a lot of deep thinking on the topics of inequity and injustice. The evidence of systemic racism is undeniable and continues to mount every day. At Wiley, we’ve been discussing not only what we should do to respond to the moment, but also how we can use this moment and our collective outrage to drive long-overdue action.

  "We start with values that include a grounding belief that acts against any of us hurt all of us, and that acts that lift each of us up, lift all of us up...We are evaluating how we operate as a company and how we work with our communities of students, researchers, authors, and partners. And we are putting together action plans to ensure that our company and our community are informed and driven to enact positive, lasting change. At Wiley, we know that inequity and injustice is not someone else’s problem. It is our problem. We intend to be part of the solution, within our walls, in our industry, in our communities, and in society at large."

   Does any of that sound objective? What do you suppose the odds of a scientific research paper disputing whether "corporations around the world building the labor force talent they need to compete and win" is a desirable economic or psychosocial goal gets published by Wiley-Blackwell?

      Elsevier is based in Holland and has a cozy relationship with Great Reset tyrant, Dutch PM Mark Rutte. Currently, Elsevier controls about a quarter of all scientific peer-reviewed journals. The company is a subsidiary of British Media octopus, RELX Plc. RELX states that Elsevier "publishes 420,000 articles a year in about 2,500 journals." As a specimen of their scientific detachment and objectivity, RELX also describes this division as: "RELX's Scientific, Technical & Medical business provides information, analytics and tools that help investors make decisions that improve scientific and healthcare outcomes. It operates under the name of Elsevier." The top shareholder of RELX is WEF/Great Reset linchpin BlackRock, which owns about 9% of the company. We're assured however that none of this impugns on Elsevier's scientific credibility in the slightest. 

     Springer is a subsidiary of German Media giant, the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group---which though little known in the US is one of the top five English-language publishers in the world since its acquisition of Macmillan. It also owns Holt, Tor, St. Martins, among many others. Holtzbrinck was founded in 1948 by a former publisher of the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda. 

   In 2015, Holtzbrinck purchased Springer with the help of corporate raider international investment firm BC Partners. BC has slightly more than a passing interest in Big Tech and Big Pharma, as may be seen from their list of major holdings. And while we're on the subject of Nazis, BC's CEO is one Stephan Cretier, also CEO of Canada's GardaWorld, "one of the world's largest private security providers." Well, we can all surmise what role that such a company has played in Canada recently. 

   It seems that maybe some of these Skeptics would be doing a little more good by worrying less about circles in cornfields and worrying more about who's pulling the strings on what they call settled science. If there really is a growing 'anti-science' sentiment in America, you're reading here what is really causing it: the fact that most science today is corrupt, unreliable, agenda-driven and could change tomorrow with a bigger payoff. Then, there's this growing tendency of science-supporters to meet criticism---not by counter-proofs, but with a police jackboot on the necks of their critics. This is an atmosphere which makes it incredibly easy for jugheads like Vox Day, Owen Benjamin, and Rollo Tomassi to spread some of the most ludicrous pseudoscience as a 'counter-narrative.' And why not? The 'official narrative' tells us absurdities about homo 'equality', man-made climate change, gender without biological or psychological origins, and many others during the so-called 'Pandemic.' 

   This is the situation that naturally arises when Science is a matter of 'controlling the narrative' and 'achieving consensus.' The next step, as is increasingly being made clear by various academics, is for Scientific Consensus to become Dogma. Remember from our own history when people who denied the 'settled science' that the earth was stationary paid for it with the Rack, Strappado, and the Stake. As recently as the 1860s in our own country, challenging the 'settled science' of racial inequality in the Confederacy was punishable by hanging. Don't imagine for one minute that it happen again. Then, as now, science was perverted to serve vested interests and the quest for truth and enlightenment has never been especially high on the list of these interests' priorities. 

    

    

   

  

FEARING THE REAPER

     So here in the local news yesterday afternoon, word came the Pendleton Flour Mill was on fire. The granary was totally destroyed. It is estimated that 1.17 million bushels of wheat was lost. Pendleton was operating at maximum capacity, and produced about 600,000 lbs. of flour per day. In February, Oregon suffered the loss of Shearers' Foods---a potato processor---in Hermiston following an explosion. There have been around 100 fires and other destructive events this year alone at food processing plants mostly causing total losses.

   Even though the ruins are still smoldering in Pendleton, local authorities have deemed it "a mechanical failure." In fact, nearly all of these cases have been ruled accidental. It's all rather reminiscent of the plane crashes, power failures, and mysterious explosions in the aftermath of 9/11 where we were all assured that "there was no indication of terrorism" before investigators even arrived on the scene. Such was the case of the fire at Forsman Farms in Minnesota last May which destroyed a quarter-million chickens which supplied over 3,000,000 eggs to supermarkets daily. That same week, incidentally, a major grain silo in Prosser, Washington exploded and the Cargill Poultry Processing Plant on the US-Canada Border burned down. One week in April alone saw 22 food processing plants burn down or explode. 

    The situation has become so serious that even the jackals in the American Corporate Media couldn't ignore it any longer. They've trotted out the usual collection of rent-a-skeptics fact-checkers to debunk any idea that such fires might be intentionally set. The Associated Press, for example, said of the destruction of Perdue Farms' Soybean Plant in Virginia that "the incident became the latest fodder for an unfounded and growing conspiracy theory alleging that fires at various U.S. food processing plants and other facilities are part of a deliberate effort to undermine the food supply. The baseless narrative has spread widely as Russia’s war on Ukraine has disrupted the global food supply, driving up prices for commodities such as grains and vegetable oils and threatening food security in some parts of the world." Quite an interesting interpretation, considering that "Russia's war on Ukraine" hasn't much to do with the soaring prices of things like beef, eggs, milk, or vegetables. The fact, though that AP's CEO Daisy Veerasingham formerly worked for the Financial Times---which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation---might raise a few more questions, especially since Gates is now the largest owner of US farmland. 

     The AP article actually made the effort to produce some of the denizens of Academia, Incorporated to lecture us hicks and hillbillies on the Settled Science of the matter. 

     "David Ortega, a food economist and associate professor at Michigan State University, said ''Beliefs that the U.S. will soon be low on food are simply unfounded.'" Right: all of these gaping spaces on your supermarket shelves that weren't there before are just unfounded figments of our imagination. So are $8/lb. packages of ground beef, $6/doz. eggs, $6/lb. cheese and $7 loaves of bread. 37 States are giving emergency allotments to EBT/Food Stamp recipients because there's no disruption in the food chain. 

    Ortega, incidentally, also holds a professorship with the Ziejiang University in China, which we're certain has no influence on his opinions despite the fact that China owns about a quarter-million acres of US farmland. Or that agribusiness-connected interests like the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and a few other shady front-groups drop millions in cash on MSU each year.

    Phillip Coles, a professor of practice in supply chain management at Lehigh University said, “The fires were definitely not at the top of my list...labor shortages domestically and global issues such as the Russian war in Ukraine, lockdowns in China and shipping costs, are larger factors." Well, except for the minor detail that the Ukraine Crisis had little to no impact on production---sanctions imposed by the US and its surrogates in European Governments caused more shortages (especially in Europe): a totally preventable situation. In fact, American Corporate looters stole expropriated 20 million tons of Ukrainian grain---which they're sitting on somewhere while prices go up. The alleged 'lockdowns' in China---which incidentally is Corporate Media Fake News as well---haven't affected Chinese exports in the slightest. Coles' profile shows that aside from his professorship, he's moonlighted as a consultant for Agribusiness interests, especially in a government regulatory compliance capacity. Regardless, Lehigh's contributions to agricultural science in recent years has been a little less than stellar, to say the least.

    The top award for irony in the AP article though has to go to Vanderbilt Psychology professor Liza Fazio who, after seeing our country experience six years of Trump Derangement Syndrome, several more of Russo-phobia, and two years of COVID-19 panic, actually opined (seriously) that "most Americans wouldn’t know the frequency of such industrial accidents — which means that it’s relatively easy to create a panic over the issue. Everything they hear gets filtered through that lens and people start noticing things that they hadn’t paid attention to before.”

       Considering the relative ease with which these Establishment creatures routinely whip Americans into a panic, it might be wise for Dr. Fazio not to broach this topic and apply it to opponents. But that aside, the U.S. is not the only country experiencing 'accidents' with their food supplies. France, for example, is dealing with a series of wildfires especially in the Gironde Region which is an agricultural center in France. The French, unlike Americans, are highly protective of family farms, and the country accounts for 17% of European agricultural output. Being a little less beholden to Agribusiness Cartels and Media pressure, French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin stated flatly that these wildfires appear to be intentional sabotage.

     “There were eight fires, between 8 and 9 this morning, that started a few hundred meters apart, which is quite unusual,” the Minister said, which is Common Sense and not political propaganda. When one thinks about it, and ignores these 'educated' schmucks in our Media, we might see suspicious patterns too. 

    Why would financial interests who have billions in agricultural futures want to create a shortage of food? Just because they did this with gasoline prices in 2008, we shouldn't imagine that they would do that to the food supply today. Just because NGOs like the Gates Foundation are scooping up distressed agricultural products---broken by the Scamdemic that these same groups created---we certainly can't jump to conclusions that they would have a vested interest in monopolizing the food supply. Especially considering that their stated goal is to do exactly that. 

  Just because Big Agriculture has been caught numerous times committing egregious acts of environmental pollution, offshoring to countries with near slave-labor conditions, price-gouging consumers and cheating small farmers in America, dumping millions in campaign contributions and lobbying on politicians while committing blatant acts of Regulatory Capture: why would anybody suspect that such stirling characters would stoop to sabotaging food supplies for power and profit?

   The World Economic Forum lists among its Top 100 Strategic Partners the following: Nestle, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Tyson and Unilever, which are agribusiness cartels operating in America. Financial Octopus Blackrock holds major shares in all of them and the WEF is packed with Blackrock employees. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is listed as the WEF's lone Strategic Foundation Partner---and they now hold the most acreage of American farmland. Kraft and Heinz Foods, along with Dairy Queen restaurants are owned by Gates' foundation partner and fellow-WEF member Warren Buffet. Or, as former Archer-Daniels-Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas once famously said: “The competitor is our friend and the customer is our enemy."

   Why would Americans engage in the obviously baseless conspiracy theory that such pillars of humanity as Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Unilever's Alan Jope, PepsiCo's Ramon Laguarta, and Blackrock's Larry Fink  would ever engage in such despicable conduct to the detriment of society? True, they all do subscribe to an ideology which considers 4/5 of the human race to be little more than parasites; but that's certainly no reason to suspect that they would deliberately drive that population into famine and poverty now is it?

    In fact, not all agricultural products are suffering shortages in America. High-potency marijuana, opium products, cocaine, and psychedelic mushrooms are still widely and freely available and somehow don't seem to be suffering from fires and explosions. It does seem a bit strange that we can't get agricultural imports from China because of lockdowns and shipping issues, but Opium from Asia doesn't seem to suffer any impediments. And even though the experts assure us that major accidents in flour mills and poultry farms are fairly common; it does seem rather peculiar that marijuana processing plants don't experience the same problems. One would suppose that stoned workers messing around with volatile oils and plant dryers would be a greater risk for fire and explosion than potato processors regularly inspected by the FDA which have to follow strict safety protocols. It's rather like the problem with our Southern Border: it's amazing how adept ICE is at catching migrant workers but somehow known drug-smugglers and criminals always manage to get through. 

    So we conclude that the best thing for good Americans to do is smoke plenty of pot, trust the fact-checkers, and apply for Food Stamps. Speaking for myself, though, I'm not such a good American anymore; and for my part, I make friends with a lot of people who grow their own foods and revisit some of my old hunting and fishing spots. 

   

     

  

     

BROWNSHIRTS ATTACK MAR-A-LAGO

     So, unless one is listening primarily to the Corporate Media---which is carrying on as though the incident was no big deal---they've probably heard that Federal Secret Police Forces stormed the home of the President-in-Exile, Donald Trump. The operation was carried out in such secrecy that Trump himself was the one who broke the story.

     

       Fortunately, Melania and the Trump children weren't present; there is no telling what those fiends might have done to them. Sending police goon-squads against a former president has never happened before, but as the President-in-Exile noted: "they will do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming elections."

     Indeed. We've actually seen in 2020 quite clearly that the Enemy would burn the country to the ground and gamble with Martial Law before they let a Populist President hold power again. Reading through many articles on today's Police Action, I feel as though I was the only one not surprised by it. Here is a comment we posted at another site:

  "Maybe Liberal pundits were only joking when they said they wanted Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, or blacklisting of Trump supporters, or putting vaxx-opponents in Concentration Camps. Maybe Biden didn't really mean it when he said that the GOP might not exist in 2024. Maybe John Kerry was only kidding when he said that the Government was wholly on board with the Great Reset and that they would 'make it happen.'"

   2020 was not an election, it was a Color Revolution. Local officials began seizing power under the pretext of a fake emergency. They de facto suspended the First Amendment ordering curfews, quarantines, and sealing local borders. Violent thugs were turned loose against against the populace and cultural monuments were destroyed. Police forces---a last line of defense against a tyranny---were defunded. Federal officials refused to carry out presidential orders. A blatantly fake election was conducted and critics of the process censored. The Military was illegally in contact with foreign leaders advising them that they would seize power if the Administration contested the vote. Political show-trials followed in the aftermath: the January 6th protesters, Derrick Chauvin, Julian Assange and the Epstein cover-up for which Ghislaine Maxwell was sacrificed. Trump supporters have been subject to varying degrees of persecution. 

   How much more clearly does the portrait of a revolutionary action need to be painted? 

    Equally unsurprising has been the reaction---or more accurately lack thereof---from Republican leadership. To his credit, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has spoken out; but as of this writing, not a word from McConnell, Cruz, Rand Paul, or any of the other top GOP power-brokers. This is not to say that the GOP isn't diligently fighting for our freedoms. While Mar-a-Lago was being raided, in fact, they were engaged in a furious Senate debate over whether or not pregnancy was something restricted only to women. 

   Some may wish to argue that the President is not above the law. This is true. But there are immunities for actions taken in office which are there for a reason: and legal, Constitutional remedies besides. Impeachment is just such a remedy. It was attempted against Trump and failed. The 8th Amendment prohibits Double Jeopardy---not that the Constitution actually matters anymore---and likely explains GOP silence over the issue. After the 'War on Drugs' and the 'War on Terror', Republican leaders might have a hard time explaining why all of the laws they supported stripping us of our Rights shouldn't be employed against them. They are doing what they typically do, in President Reagan's words: "feeding the crocodile hoping that they'll be eaten last."

   Reagan's words are going to come back to haunt us all, because hopefully nobody is naive enough to imagine that the Revolutionists are going to stop at getting Trump. The Junta found they could get away with making human sacrifices of the Jan 6 protesters, Chauvin, Maxwell, and Assange: if they succeed in immolating Trump and his advisers, the Witch Hunt that will follow will rival anything out of the Jacobin, Bolshevik, or Nazi Revolutions. If they are bold enough to lay hands on the administrators of the previous government, they certainly will not be squeamish about laying their hands on anybody else. Yesterday, it was the protesters, today it's Trump, tomorrow it will be us. Make no mistake about their intentions. Gangs of political and financial criminals typically don't stage a putsch because they think their opponents aren't being treated fairly enough. 

   Today's raid underscores our need for building networks of Parallel Communities. We can't put our trust in the 'system' nor some illusory 'Red Wave.' Those days are behind us, and all the Denial isn't going to change anything.

    

   

WHY IS CHINA THE ENEMY?

     The Supreme Leader of America's Rump Parliament stealthily entered Taiwan yesterday in a continuing saga of the International Bully provoking China. And not surprisingly, the Dragon is on the move: they promised a reaction and right now Taiwan is encircled, it's airspace effectively closed, with embargoes and further economic retaliation about to be imposed on the United States. The Oligarchs, of course, never bear the price of their policies, That's for the American people (whom they consider expendable) and for the Taiwanese (whom they consider even more expendable), while the political class are hailed as courageous heroes by their hired flatterers in Media and Academia.

    Like Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine---countries 4/5 of Americans can't find on a map---Taiwan is becoming another place where the International Bully has chosen to prove to his domestic followers that he's still the toughest kid on the block. And as they routinely do, the Government-Media Complex is making China the scapegoat in a crisis entirely of the United States' own making. 

   The average American is even more clueless about Foreign Policy than they are about domestic issues. Vis-a-vis China, they go around spouting whatever the Corporate-funded Media narrative is---which is mostly nothing more than a pack of lies and anti-China propaganda. They talk about China's 'repression' of the Uighurs and the Rohingya tribes without mentioning the little detail that both of these groups are heavily infiltrated with Islamic Extremists and are major centers of the International Opioid Trade. They go around with Free Tibet bumper-stickers and hail the Dalai Lama as some great spiritual leader---completely ignorant of the fact that the Lamas ran one of the most brutal and corrupt regimes in Asia. In fact, the Lamas were ethnically-cleansing Chinese minorities when Mao invaded. People all stood up for the protests in Hong Kong even though under British rule it was a hotbed of Organized Crime; or that most of the protests were made up of foreign provocateurs shipped in by the likes of George Soros. Taiwan isn't much of an exception to these patterns: until recently it was a military dictatorship and since it came into being in 1949 was always more or less a CIA cutout. The current Taiwanese government was practically installed by the Obama Administration. COVID-19 was, of course, all blamed on China despite the mounting evidence that American military labs and Big Pharma were experimenting with just such a virus possibly as early as 2018. 

     Polls show that 89% of the American population believe that China is an enemy of the United States. I would wager that at least 89% of that figure has no idea why they think so. It's astounding to read comments even on many 'Conservative' websites from people who seriously believe that the Biden/Harris Junta was put into power with Chinese collusion. It's almost as bad as the Whacko Left and their conspiracy theories about Trump being elected with Russian help. Even this blatant provocation by Pelosi hasn't disillusioned these people. The Junta was installed with foreign help---that is true---but it wasn't from China, it was from Davos. And that fact probably accounts for most of the anti-China sentiment in the U.S. on its own.

   Granted, the Communist Party of China and Xi Jinping are not a collection of angels themselves; but they certainly have no intention of being bossed around by a bunch of frat-boys on Wall Street living off their great-grandfathers' achievements. In that respect, they at least show more character and dignity than most Americans can muster and they actually do show a little more concern for the Chinese people than American plutocrats and their paid politicians can claim.

        Since Xi Jinping became China's president, he undertook an economic reform program which has found its expression in his New Silk Road Project. This is based on what Xi calls "win-win cooperation" which is a departure from the older Maoist and Soviet philosophies of spreading Communism with the sword. Basically what Xi proposed is that other countries have resources which can benefit China and China has reciprocal resources which can be traded for mutual benefit. China takes the position of non-interference in these countries' internal affairs. He belongs to that rather idealistic school Communist thought which holds that these other nations will see the 'truth' of Communism as their living standards improve and will adopt the Chinese Way over time. 

      Before World War 2, the United States had a similar foreign/economic policy though based in republicanism and free enterprise. Since the war, however, we've largely degenerated into a society more reflective of the monarchies and dictatorships which we once opposed. We've adopted an internal culture based largely on selfishness, narcissism, and a perverted form of so-called 'rugged individualism' which glorifies success and power at all costs. We've developed a 'win-lose' attitude by which someone else's gain equals a loss for us. Envy and Virtue-Signalling are two of the obvious manifestations of this philosophy and in foreign policy imposing our 'Exceptionalism' on other nations is the mainspring of all of our international relations. Diplomacy, to Americans, means whatever is in America's interest regardless of whether the other countries involved benefit or not. Sadly, this is a reflection of what our culture has become because our interpersonal relationships today is really our international ones in a microcosm. 

     If we returned to our previous national character, the only competition between us and the Chinese would be ideological, i.e. Communism vs. republicanism. Both of our countries have problems that the other could help solve if we took an attitude of cooperation instead of domination. Unfortunately, this isn't likely to happen since America's overlords in Media and Academia have conditioned the public to see cooperation and mutual respect as a sign of weakness. When Obama tried his 'Pivot to Asia' it ended in disaster and America learned nothing from the humiliating experience. We learned nothing from Syria, Afghanistan, or Ukraine either and likely won't. After all, we've got the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial and the latest strain of recreational marijuana to think about.