GODLESS CAPITALISM IS NO SOLUTION EITHER

    Our old friends among the smug, self-appointed Neocon Intellectual Elite are at it yet again. Victor Davis Hanson---a gadfly who keeps popping up on Conservative forums because of his ability to sound smart by throwing endless historical and philosophical non sequiturs into his various jeremiads against the current state of society---has written another such specimen titled American Delira. 

   Hanson's basic premise is that Americans have become weak and degenerate (which is true); but not because of social apathy, rampant narcissism, and corporate totalitarianism. Instead, he believes that Americans aren't working hard enough, have been too prosperous, and have had too much freedom of expression. It's as if the 9/11 Anniversary brought back fond memories of the erection of the Security State and Bush Administration attitude of don't ask questions, just trust us. (Which, BTW, is the same general attitude of the RNC when asked about their objectives in the upcoming election---assuming that we have an election of course). 

  There seems to be strange assumption on many parts of the political Right that unelected Corporate bureaucrats are more sympathetic to the Rights of Man than elected Governments are. It seems to have escaped their notice that our cultural and economic decline really took off in the 1990s and 2000s decades when we had massive 'deregulation' that created monopolies, lifted controls on lobbying, permitted outsourcing, and created numerous private NGOs and so-called 'Private-Public Partnerships.' People like Hanson look back with nostalgia at eras like the 1950s but forget that the Eisenhower Administration was expanding public investment in infrastructure had very strict regulations against concentrations of wealth. 

   They also seem forget that as private entities, Corporate policies are not subject to Constitutional Law: in other words, the bigger the enterprise the less accountable it is. This week it was announced that Visa and Mastercard were setting up databases to track and record gun purchases. No Government agency is forcing them to do this. Under the US Constitution, a database like this would have to be approved by Congress and subjected to Judicial Review by the federal courts. But Visa and Mastercard are private entities and not subject to this kind of oversight. These two corporations also control 77% of market-share. In fact, there's nothing really stopping them from banning gun purchases from their system altogether. If anyone believes that this can't happen, consider that these same people blockaded transactions to Wikileaks just a few years ago. If the 'power to tax is the power to destroy', it shouldn't be forgotten that the power to control private transactions is also the power to destroy. 

    In his article, Hanson remarks that "Properly understood, wokeness is simply the doctrine that all perceived inequality must be the result of culpability, not personal behavior or conduct. There is no role for chance, individual health, inheritance, or character that make us different. There are no cosmic forces like globalization that transcend race. What’s left instead is a nefariousness that divides the world into a collective binary of the noble victimized and their demonic oppressors. Thus, the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country, in post-Marxist style, to identify the victims/oppressed, and to redistribute power, money, and influence to them. That allows the anointed to condemn the victimizers/oppressors collectively and to stigmatize, ostracize, and enfeeble them." 

  It seems to have escaped Hanson's attention that the distribution of wealth and power has not trickled down during the last three decades: in fact, wealth distribution has become more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. He says that "thus the duty of government and righteous egalitarian culture is to divide the country" without explaining who benefits from such division. A 'stigmatized, ostracized, and enfeebled' productive class is precisely what the Corporate Overlords want: first, because it eliminates the potential for competition; secondly because less-skilled workers demand lower wages and benefits; and third because they haven't the initiative, resources, or organization to challenge the Oligarchy politically. 

   Hanson rather disingenuously adds that: "Every agency available—government, popular culture, science, history, literature, the arts, the university, the media, big tech, the corporate boardroom, and Wall Street—must be subordinated and recalibrated to spot supposed inequality so that they can fix it through reparatory discrimination. All being equal and poorer is preferable to all being richer, but with some richer than others," as if none of these institutions has the power to resist wokeness. The fact is that government, the media, academia, and the boardrooms are completely under the thumb of Wall Street---and it is Big Business, not Big Government, that is driving the woke agenda. 

   If anyone would like an example of what an unregulated Corporate social order would look like, one need look no further than the World Economic Forum. The Top 100 'Strategic Partners'---promoting such polices as the Great Reset, depopulation, and 'smart cities'---have among American representation alone the following:

   AIG Insurance, Amazon, Bain & Company, Bank of America, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, BlackRock, Boston Consulting Group, Bridgewater Associates, Chevron, Cisco Systems, CitiBank, Clayton, Dubilier,& Rice, Coca-Cola, Dell Technologies, Deloitte, Dow Chemical, Goldman-Sachs, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, IBM, Infosys, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan-Chase Bank, JLL Investments, Kearney Consulting Group, ManPower Group, Marsh McLennan Consulting Group, Mastercard, McKinsey & Co., Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Morgan-Stanley, Open Society Foundation (Soros), Palantir Technologies, PayPal, PepsiCo, Proctor & Gamble, Salesforce, Uber, UPS, Verizon, and Visa.

   Foreign-owned Companies heavily invested in the US include: Allianz Insurance (Pemco in the US), AstraZeneca, Alibaba, British Petroleum, Credit Suisse, DHL, Ericsson-Sony, Hitachi, HSBC, Huawei, Lazard Advertising, Mitsubishi, Nestle, Novartis, Pfizer,  Publicis Group (owns Zenith in the US), Royal Dutch Shell Oil, Royal Dutch-Phillips, Saudi Aramco, Siemens Electric, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Unilever, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

   This isn't even counting the two hundred or so 'Associate Partners' who also are on board with the WEF Agenda. Here we only listed the ones based or operating in the United States. This combined level of capital, if it were an independent country, have more assets than the national GDP of every country except the US and China. Is anyone going to pretend that a bloc like this stands for Free Enterprise and Free Markets? 

   People like Hanson ought to reflect that the WEF holds annual meetings with it's so-called 'stakeholders' and governments send representatives there. Are these corporations and cartels protesting to any of these leaders about excessive 'wokeness?' 

     If anyone is still inclined to doubt this, they need simply observe the modern 'woke' Police State known as Canada. The entire leadership of that nation is under the WEF jackboot. Every year, the WEF selects and honors a group of 'Young Global Leaders'---the very fact that they are doing this ought to be a huge red flag as to what the objective of these corporations really is. The WEF for 'security reasons' doesn't reveal all the names, but that didn't stop Klaus Schwab from boasting in 2017 that "I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum."

Here are some of the ones that we know of: 

Justin Trudeau (2005) Strongman and de facto dictator Prime Minister.

Chrystia Freeland (2005) Deputy Prime Minister under Tiananmen Trudeau, encouraged brutal suppression of the Truckers' Protest.

Melanie Joly (2016) Foreign Minister

Francois-Phillippe Champagne (2009) Minister of Industry. Former executive with WEF Top 100 Strategic Partner, ABB Technologies. 

Karina Gould (2020) Minister of Family, Children, and Social Welfare

Sean Fraser (2022) Minister of Immigration

Dishonorable Mention:

Ricken Patel (2010) CEO of Anglosphere 'activist' social media powerhouse Avaaz, a Soros-funded front. 

Dominique Anglade (2014) Deputy Premier of Quebec; pushed extreme lockdown measures.

Jagmeet Singh (2018) Head of the New Democratic Party and MP from Ontario, instigator of Truckers' Protest suppression.

   “'Capitalism as we know it is dead' the WEF says. And thus ‘stakeholder capitalism’ is needed. In this case, rather than pursuing profits, companies would 'pursue the wellbeing of all people and the entire planet.' Essentially ‘stakeholder capitalism’, would be capitalism with a dose of Marxism, which the WEF believes is needed for capitalism to survive...'The Great Reset' would also serve as a way to tackle the ongoing climate crisis. This 'fourth industrial revolution' would include accelerating efforts to reach net zero emissions... It would push all countries to become digital and 'will lead to fusion of our physical, our digital and our biological identities' says Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the WEF. It is also said that 'America will no longer be a world superpower', but instead 'a handful of countries will dominate.'" Corporate Media 'fact-checkers', incidentally, deny that the WEF is engaged in any kind of global government conspiracy. 

  Here, though, we have Hanson's parroting the same Corporate party-line while posing as opposition: "What will end wokeness? The reversal of the leisure and affluence that were the bounties of 233 years of what birthed it—free-market capitalism, constitutional government, meritocracy, human rights, tolerance, and free expression...Destroy the bounty that produced and empowered the woke decadence, and we won’t have anything—the woke included. Wokeism is, for now, an affordable irrelevancy that rests on the wealth and lessons produced by those long dead and now much rebuked. But it won’t remain affordable."

  How exactly is Hanson's position materially different from Schwab's? One offers a future where we'll own nothing and be happy, the other tells that we'll own nothing and be hopeful. 

  This notion is reflective of a concept which Neocons promote for everyone other than themselves: rugged individualism. Despite the revisionist history surrounding the term, our forefathers probably never heard of it since its first known use was during the 1930 mid-term elections. President Hoover's Interior Secretary explained to the media that:  "It is common talk that every individual is entitled to economic security. The only animals and birds I know that have economic security are those that have been domesticated—and the economic security they have is controlled by the barbed-wire fence, the butcher's knife and the desire of others. They are milked, skinned, egged or eaten up by their protectors." His interpretation of the term was obviously much different that the way that today's 'Conservatives' mean it. Hoover's position was not the 'lift-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps' snake oil peddled by today's pundit. Hoover's belief was that American initiative and commitment to Christian principles of duty to one's neighbor would play out and solve the economic crisis.

   The Official Narrative as the term is used today is provided for us by Wikipedia: "American rugged individualism has its origins in the American frontier experience. Throughout its evolution, the American Frontier was generally sparsely populated and had very little infrastructure in place. Under such conditions, individuals had to provide for themselves to survive." 

  The Unofficial Narrative (i.e. the truth) is that the American frontier was settled by pioneers who arrived in convoys of wagon trains, usually from an established settlement. The pioneers---so far from 'rugged individualists' depended upon each other to a huge extent. They took turns working in teams to build each others' cabins and barns; as well as clearing, plowing, planting and harvesting each others' fields. When we read of stories of frontiersmen like Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone; it's often forgotten that they were leaders of hunting parties and that the extraordinary amount of game that they harvested was dressed, processed, and sent to the community where it was divided up for wintertime use. Widows with families got an equal portion despite not participating in the hunt. Collecting firewood was carried out much the same way. The community's women would do similar things, forming teams to weave clothes and blankets and preserve food. 

   If one seriously thinks about it, the odds of lone individuals with an "I got mine, screw everybody else" attitude surviving on the frontier were very remote. Consider that the Indians---who were already used to frontier life---lived in mutualist communities. The revisionism has been difficult to dismiss in our national psychology. The majority of Americans perceive wealth and success to be the outcome of individual talent, effort, and entrepreneurship and see poverty due to bad choices or lack of effort, according to recent Pew Research polls. This is basically Hanson's position:  that the poor could become rich if they tried hard enough. It's an illusion, and Hanson knows it. It's also essentially little more than apology for Crony Capitalism, and a rationalization for blind selfishness and outright greed.  

  We will elaborate a bit further on this latter point in a future article, but suffice to say for now that top-down imposed 'wokeism' is a problem of the American people's own making---the political Right included. This is a Third Rail Topic among both Republicans and Libertarians---for obvious reasons they don't want to admit to their culpability in creating the problem, and calling out their own constituency for its hypocrisy isn't considered a good electoral strategy. However, it's necessary. The Right needs a thorough spiritual cleansing and owning up to the American People is the first step to rebuilding. The President-in-Exile Donald Trump is heroically attempting to do something similar through purely political means, but his efforts are going to come up short. What we need on the Right is a secular version of the Catholic Sacrament of Penance or 'wokeness' is going to continue rolling over us without significant opposition. 

   

    

  

   

   

LET'S RETHINK THIS MONARCHY BUSINESS

     As if the world urgently needed more meaningless distractions, the Corporate Media is pounding the drums and saying that we should all be in throes of grief of the passing of Elizabeth Windsor-Mountbatten, aka Queen Elizabeth II. For some unaccountable reason, most of the Anglosphere and Northern Europe (excepting France) still cling to this Divine Right of Kings nonsense. Americans for some reason also join in, mostly because everybody else is doing it. It's doubtful that 3 of 4 Americans could find Britain on a map, but we're all expected to sing along with "God Save the Queen" because Canadians do and the MSM tells us to.

    My opinion of a royal's decease is a little different. To my mind, it's only Nature finally doing what the guillotine should have done a long time ago. When we see a fellow-American wailing in sack-cloth and ashes over Elizabeth, we should politely ask them exactly what good any member of the British Royalty ever did for the United States. Our forefathers made a lot of sacrifices to eject that collection of parasites from our shores and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren made many sacrifices to keep them from coming back. Britain was considered a hostile foreign power by the US until the World Wars, and even then Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt had to beg our media not to display footage of British royalty for fear it would turn public opinion against the British. It's taken decades too undo much of the damage they caused while here like building the Slave system and inciting the Indians against settlers. Not to mention what they've done since: like stretching their tentacles into American markets and dragging us into wars to defend their interests.

     Royalty today is the product of centuries of inbreeding, unearned wealth, and unaccountability from civil law. Monarchy really began in both the West and in the Near East after the fall of the Roman Empire. Among the Barbarians who ushered in the Middle Ages, the only qualification for kingship was being the most ruthless and toughest thug in the tribe. These early rulers were also cunning enough to realize that the people might revolt against some of their future less virile descendants, and so, with the aid of some corrupt clerics, devised the myth that they were appointed by God to defend their Christian subjects (up to and including suppressing other Christians who dared point out that the Church-State system's policies and actions often conflicted with the Bible). That strain of brutality, intolerance, and protecting its privileges at all costs has been a constant royal trait since the beginning. 

    Witness the current situation in Buckingham Palace. The Queen's carcass had barely reached room temperature before Prince Charles pounced on the vacant throne and declared himself the British Head-of-State. 70 million citizens of the UK along with millions more Commonwealth sycophants in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand hail this degenerate as 'sovereign' whose realm also includes a few wayward sons of the Crown (e.g. Americans, Irishmen, South Africans, Indians, among others). 

   Charles III, as he is now known to the world, exceeds even his father Prince Phillip in villany and moral corruption---and that is saying a lot. In Britain, Charles is widely suspected---not without good reason---of having involvement in the death of his first wife Lady Diana Spencer, whom he abused and gaslighted mercilessly. He was also deeply involved in the sexual blackmail and money-laundering operations of Jeffrey Epstein---whose 'suicide' he's also widely suspected of having engineered. Charles is widely believed to be a latent homosexual, as his uncle and self-described mentor, Lord Louis Mountbatten was a notorious pervert who preyed on young boys.

   Not surprisingly, Charles is a good friend of Klaus Schwab's and spoke favorably of the Great Reset. The connection between Buckingham Palace and Davos is so blatant that Tiananmen Trudeau had to bring in a WEF official to spread counter-propaganda to the CBC and allay Canadian fears about their incoming King. Charles has a particular interest in reducing human population---presumably among nations who don't recognize the sovereignty of monarchs. His father Prince Phillip, who once mourned the fact that malaria epidemics were no longer wiping out large swaths of the Asian populace and once expressed hope that he would be reincarnated as a deadly virus to decimate the earth's population, started Charles down this ideological path. Such is the erudite reasoning and scientific acumen behind Charles' positions on the subject. 

   

    Hopefully, once all of the media hoopla and hero-worship finally fizzles out and cooler heads prevail, the British people will decide finally to rid themselves of these royal leeches and declare for a Republic of Great Britain. Aside from the mischief they cause with the likes of Schwab and Epstein, the royals serve no actual purpose in the interests of Britain except to provide fodder for the tabloids and scandal-sheets. The amount of tax dollars and hoarded wealth expended to maintain these people would be employed much better to improve the situation among the commoners---who are actually despised by the very aristocracy whom they support. 

   In America, we have organized crime families too: only here they're called the Mafia and it would be an interesting exercise to explain how the Mafia and the Royal Family are any different in actual principle. It ought to be instructive to the British people that other countries that abolished Monarchy haven't expressed any especial desire to get them back. After the Iron Curtain fell, Russia, Lithuania, Poland, Albania, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria---not one of them wanted their royal families to return. France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, China have gotten along well without them. Even the Nazis didn't want the Kaiser back, and neither did post-war or post-reunification Germany. 

   It's time that Britain and the rest of the Anglosphere Commonwealth did the same. Nobody is going to be any worse off for the loss.

NONE DARE CALL IT CENSORSHIP

    The Whacko Left Wing has been celebrating this week over the success of their pressure-tactics against website Kiwi Farms. Kiwi Farms has been around for awhile, it was basically a site similar to Reddit although geared to (mostly humorous) discussions of public figures and causes. The Left characterized Kiwi Farms as a 'Right-Wing Hate Site' even though Alt-Right figures like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Vox Day and Owen Benjamin  frequently unleashed their wrath at Kiwi Farms threads and called for Cancel Culture to be invoked on their own. 

    Kiwi Farms also had threads calling out nutcases on the Left which naturally drew down the ire of the Gay Mafia, whom for obvious reasons dislike having their activities exposed. In the Postmodern West, being accused of homophobia is an unforgivable social crime---no one apparently stopping to think that the term is a meaningless neologism and not even close to a legal term. The Whacko Left pressured Cloudfare---which has a de facto monopoly on website security systems---to remove Kiwi Farms, effectively taking it offline since no search engine supports a website without that system in place. Not surprisingly, the pressure-group behind this was based in Canada. 

    The NPCs were out in full force celebrating the news. Whereas in our grandparents time, people reacted to speech they objected to simply by turning a page or inserting a pair of ear-plugs; our enlightened era doesn't think it's accomplished anything unless they've prevented everyone else from hearing it. It's rather like the dystopian novel Brave New World where if anyone felt unhappy, that became all of society's problem. Interestingly enough, it's also characteristic behavior of prepubescent girls who, notoriously, when they're mad at someone want everyone else to be mad at them too. 

   Cancel Culture---like most of postmodernism---relates to that kind of childish immaturity more than we might want to believe. The whole utopia envisioned by the Great Reset's architects are essentially about returning humanity back to the state of childhood. The masses will be given a room, their surrogate parents overlords will provide them with appropriate food and clothing, monitor their whereabouts, take them to the doctor when sick, etc. Of course there will also be discipline for the few naughty ones  dissidents who don't obey Big Brother  society's norms, but that aspect of the programme is rarely mentioned. 

   

    When platforms and persons get cancelled, there is widespread criticism of Corporate censorship. This is, however, a misnomer and it detracts from the roots of the real issue. Only Government can commit actual censorship. Private Corporations are legally free to set any terms they choose for whatever content they decide to host: and this is how it should be if we want to Property Rights. 

   The problem is though that we have allowed Corporations like Cloudfare to grow so large and so powerful that they de facto have the power of a government with none of its responsibilities. For example, consider the case with Youtube a subsidiary of Google which is itself a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc. Youtube has been on a recent spate of highly selective content-removal. Youtube's CEO is Susan Wojcicki, who is not only deeply connected with the Great Reset, her brother-in-law was one of the co-founders of Google and top shareholder in Alphabet; which itself is a Top 100 Strategic Partner at the WEF. WEF 'partner' banks hold about 13% of Alphabet stock combined. Now it may be pointed out that there are smaller platforms for video-sharing available: it may be so, but Google currently holds 91% of search-engine capacity. That is not likely to change either there are literally hundreds of revolving-door personnel between Google and the US Government. Alphabet currently has 79 Beltway lobbyists---61 of whom are also revolving-door former federal bureaucrats.

     The case with Youtube could be repeated across the board with any major platform with only minor variations. Whenever we run into economies driven by massive combines and cartels that hold overwhelming majorities of market-shares, we no longer have a Free Market and are really no better off than countries which have State-controlled Media. 

    Younger readers who don't remember the days before there was an Internet need to understand that mass-communication then (print media, radio, and television) had the same problems. There was no shortage of outlets promoting crackpot conspiracy theories, sordid rumors and gossip, and promoting what is called today 'hate speech.' 

     We didn't resort to censorship or Cancel Culture back then because there were multiple platforms available, and publications and broadcasts which were odious were generally ignored or at least marginalized and laughed at. What changed with the Internet was that most of the platforms came together under single web-hosts. It also didn't help matters when the Clinton Administration---aided and abetted by Neocon Corporate toadies in Congress---stripped away laws prohibiting concentrated power in media. 

    From a political and economic perspective, the answer to our growing problems surrounding free speech is not to extend such powers: what we actually need is more consumer/creator choice in platforms. To draw an analogy: before there was Cable TV, NBC, CBS, ABC were about the only American television networks in existence. However, there were laws limiting how many television stations they could directly own and limits to how much marketshare they could have in specific geographic areas (radio and newspapers had similar limitations). Most stations were independent and could run syndicated and independent programming (this was the precursor to Cable TV). There were also limitations against interlocking Corporate Boards of Directors and stock-ownership. For example, no one could sit on both the Boards of CBS and ABC; and no one could own stock in multiple media venues. We lost those kinds of regulations in the 1990s; and we only have an illusion of choice in today's digital media because, despite having unlimited choices in platforms the platforms are all run by the same people.

     This situation not only gives the Corporate Oligarchs undue power; it paradoxically empowers the fringe-groups who want to control Free Speech. To draw another analogy with the past, consider the difficulty of an interest group's ability to silence 20,000 independent radio stations as opposed to influencing one Internet Provider. Likewise if there were 20 security-systems to choose from and 30 different search-engine companies---all with roughly equal market-share and independent of Crony Capitalist influence---there wouldn't be any controversy about Internet 'censorship;' and these proponents of Cancel Culture would be only a bunch of harmless cranks instead of an outright social menace. 

    Of course, solutions like these would never suit the interests of the Crony Capitalist cabal which actually controls both our economic and social policies. It is in their interest to keep Cancel Culture going strong because it keeps the population divided, provides a plausible excuse for silencing sites that are obnoxious to their interests, and terrorizes the population into conformity. Monopoly control over mediums of expression allows the Oligarchy to manufacture a 'narrative' and pretend that it is a consensus. Going against that consensus could result in being cancelled. 

   In other words, creating both a uniform social consensus and a corresponding climate of fear means for the individual that his identity is defined by social acceptance and that acceptance is actually being manufactured. It creates an illusion of freedom where none actually exists because silencing dissent becomes in itself a liberating act: it 'frees' people from 'threats' to their freedom. As an example of how this perverse logic operates, consider what a troon writer for corporate-controlled Slate Magazine had to say:

  "As this effort has gone on, Kiwi Farms and its defenders have tried to wrap themselves in the cloak of speech, painting opponents as attempting to suppress free expression. That gets it exactly backward: All those who genuinely love free speech should rejoice at Cloudflare finally dropping the site, thereby making it far harder for the forum to remain accessible on the web. If the larger effort to drive Kiwi Farms off the internet succeeds, survivors of the harassment campaigns, long silenced by fear, may at last be able to re-enter the public sphere and use their voices freely."

  What this character doesn't realize is that that is the very same argument that his opponents could easily use for suppressing magazines like Slate which they consider hostile to their views. Predictably, throughout the Slate article all of the arguments are predicated on the fake news that Kiwi Farms was a 'hate site' (whatever that means) that was inciting violence. The very fact that every Corporate Media outlet which has bothered to cover the Kiwi Farms story uses almost exactly the same talking-points ought to tell us that the campaign was hardly a grass-roots effort organized by some hysterical, gender-dysphoric Internet 'influencer'. More likely this person was a prop; and the fact that Cloudfare rather dramatically caved in less than a week after initially refusing demands to deplatform Kiwi Farms (and that none of their competitors will touch KF despite its heavy traffic) is a fairly strong indication that the pressure Cloudfare really got came from a much higher source. A good bet about that source would be to look at Cloudfare's top shareholders:

Morgan Stanley (WEF) 13%

Fidelity FMR (WEF) 6%

Blackrock (WEF) 5%

State Street (WEF) 2%

    Additionally the Top 10 Cloudfare shareholders have a combined total of 91 Beltway lobbyists; 63 of whom are revolving-door former federal officials. In this day and age though it would be considered radical to imagine that that degree of power and influence had anything whatsoever to do with Cloudfare's decision. In case anybody is wondering, the Federal Communications Commission has been headed by either a former lawyer or a former lobbyist for Big Tech/Big Media since 1993. 

   The future of Free Speech at this point is not looking especially promising; we still are awaiting some court decisions relating to the upcoming show-trial for Julian Assange which is very likely to make a bad situation even worse. Sadly, there is very little---if any---real impetus among Conservatives to do much to defend Free Speech. Just about all of the commentary coming out of most punditry on the Right is  hoping for some 'Red Wave' to come along and play Cancel Culture with the Left. That isn't going to help anything even if it does happen. 

   Earlier American dead White males jurists and political philosophers taught that the best way to combat bad speech was in the Marketplace of Ideas. That's still true, but we'll need a free market again before that can happen. 

    

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.