Fossil Fuels Form The Basis Of Our Medical And Food Supply Chains | PA Pundits – International

https://papundits.wordpress.com/2021/10/20/fossil-fuels-form-the-basis-of-our-medical-and-food-supply-chains/

By Ronald Stein ~

Under Biden’s plan to rid America of fossil fuels,
such a plan would eliminate the medical industry that is totally
reliant on the products made from petroleum derivatives, and eliminate
oil-based fertilizers to grow the crops that feed the 8 billion on
planet earth. Surprisingly, Biden must be oblivious to the consequences
of his plan as efforts to cease the use of oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change.

Biden supports the end of fracking, oil exploration,
and oil importing which cuts off the supply chain of crude oil to
refineries. Without any crude oil to manufacture, elimination of the
supply chain to the 131 operating refineries in the U.S. would eliminate that manufacturing sector.

…At least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag as they are living on less than $10 a day.
To reduce emissions in the developing countries that control most emissions, the wealthy countries would need to step up and subsidize
electricity generation from breezes and sunshine, to replace more than 3,000 coal fired power plants in developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Africa, and Vietnam with billions of people seeking affordable electricity.

KOMMONSENTSJANE – TARGETING TRUMP: DURHAM UNCOVERS NEW CLINTON/FBI CONNECTIONS IN RUSSIA PROBE. | ARLIN REPORT……………….walking this path together

https://arlinreport.com/2021/10/19/kommonsentsjane-targeting-trump-durham-uncovers-new-clinton-fbi-connections-in-russia-probe/

kommonsentsjane

INVESTIGATIVE BULLETIN

Did this put Bill Clinton in the hospital? The oil is rising to the surface. Wonder if it will go anywhere?

*******

OCTOBER 12, 2021
|
JUDICIAL WATCH
Targeting Trump: Durham Uncovers New Clinton, FBI Connections in Russia Probe

The wheels of justice grind slow—much to the exasperation of, well, everybody. In April 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed federal prosecutor John Durham to get to the bottom of the Russia mess: the sensational allegations, both before and after Donald Trump’s November 2016 presidential election victory, of Trump connections to dirty Russian money, dirty players, and dirty deeds.

Testifying before a Senate subcommittee, Barr said he wanted a review of “both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.” Durham’s mandate: investigate the investigators—particularly the FBI. What did the FBI know about Trump’s accusers and when did they know it?

Last…

View original post 1,405 more words

I cannot do it anymore | Aletho News

https://alethonews.com/2021/10/16/i-cannot-do-it-anymore/

In an open letter, an employee of German public broadcaster ARD is critical of one and a half years of Corona coverage: Ole Skambraks has worked as an editorial assistant and editor at the public broadcaster for 12 years.

BY OLE SKAMBRAKS | multipolar magazine | 14. Oktober 2021

I can no longer remain silent. I can no longer silently watch what has been going on for a year and a half now within my organization, a public service broadcaster. Things like “balance”, “social cohesion” and “diversity” in reporting are principles embedded in the statutes and media state contracts. Today, the exact opposite is happening. There is no true discourse and exchange in which all parts of society can come together and find common ground. From the beginning, I felt that public service broadcasting should fill precisely this space: promote dialogue between advocates of measures and critics, between people who are afraid of the virus and people who are afraid of losing their basic rights, between vaccination supporters and vaccination sceptics. For the past year and a half, however, the space for discussion has narrowed considerably. Scientists and experts who were respected and esteemed before Covid, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly labelled cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or Covidiots. As an oft-cited example, consider Wolfgang Wodarg, a medical specialist in several fields, an epidemiologist and a long-time health politician. Until the Covid crisis, he was also on the board of Transparency International. In 2010, as Chair of the Council of Europe Health Committee, he exposed the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the swine flu pandemic. At that time, he was granted the opportunity to express his opinion on public service broadcasting, but in times of Covid this is no longer possible. His voice has been replaced by that of so-called fact-checkers, who seek to discredit him.Paralysing consensus Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic, will reap indignation and scorn. The same pattern is at work in the newsrooms. For the last one and a half years, I have no longer been working in the daily news business, which I am pleased about. In my current position, I am not involved in decisions about which topics are treated and how. Here, I describe my impressions from editorial conferences and an analysis of the reporting. For a long time I did not dare to leave the role of observer, the supposed consensus seemed too absolute and unanimous. For a few months, I have been venturing out onto the ice, making some critical remarks here and there in conferences. This is often followed by a shocked silence, sometimes a “thank you for pointing it out” and every so often a lecture on why it is not true. This has never resulted in any reporting. The result of one and a half years of Covid-19 is an unparalleled division in society. Public service broadcasting has played a major role in this. It is increasingly failing in its responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote exchange. It is often argued that the critics are a small, negligible minority, which, for reasons of proportionality, cannot be accommodated to any great extent. This argument should have been retired at least with the Swiss referendum on Covid-19 measures. Despite the lack of free exchange of opinions in mass media in that country too, the votes cast went only 60:40 in favour of the government. (1) With a proportion of 40%, can you talk about a small minority? It also turned out that the Swiss Government had tied Covid-related financial support to the vote, which might have influenced some to tick “Yes” on the ballot. The developments of the Covid crisis are taking place on so many levels, affecting all parts of society, and thus we clearly need more space for a free debate – certainly not less. In this context, it is less revealing which topics are being discussed in public service media, than what is not being discussed. The reasons for this are many and need to be subject to honest internal scrutiny. It could be helpful to look at some titles published by the media scientist and former MDR broadcasting adviser Uwe Krüger, for example his book “Mainstream – Warum wir den Medien nicht mehr trauen” (“Mainstream — why we no longer trust the media”). In any case, it takes courage to swim against the current in conferences where such topics are discussed. Often those who can put forward their arguments in the most eloquent way will get their message across but, if in doubt, the editorial team will decide, of course. Very early on, those critical of the Government’s Covid-19 measures were labelled right-wingers. Which editor will still dare to voice similar ideas? Open questionsThus the list of inconsistencies and open questions, which have gone largely unreported, is very long:

  • Why do we know so little about “gain of function research” (which aims at making viruses more dangerous to humans)?
  • Why does the new Infection Protection Act state that the basic right to bodily integrity and the inviolability of one’s home may be restricted henceforth – even without an epidemic situation?
  • Why must people who have already had Covid-19 still get the jab, even though they are at least as well protected as those who are vaccinated?
  • Why are we not talking about ”Event 201” and the global pandemic exercises held shortly before the spread of SARS-CoV-2 — at all, or only in the context of conspiracy theories? (2)
  • Why was the internal document from the German Federal Ministry of the Interior — a document which was known to the media and in which the authorities were asked to create a “shock effect” to underscore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human society — not published in full and discussed publicly?
  • Why is the study by Professor Ioannidis on survival rates (99.41% for people under 70) not featured in the headlines, while the fatally flawed, inflated figures produced by Imperial College were (in the spring of 2020, Neil Ferguson foresaw half a million Covid-19 deaths in the United Kingdom and more than 2 million in the United States)?
  • Why does it say, in a document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, that Covid-19 patients stood for no more than 2% of the burden of hospitals during 2020?
  • Why does Bremen have the by far the highest incidence (113 as at 04/10/21) and at, the same time, by far the highest vaccination rate in Germany (79%)?
  • Why were payments of 4 million euro paid into a family account belonging to EU Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides, who was responsible for concluding the first EU vaccine contracts with pharmaceutical companies? (3)
  • Why are people suffering severe vaccine injury not featured to the same extent as people with severe Covid-19 disease were in 2020? (4)
  • Why is no one disturbed by the irregular way of counting “breakthrough infections” in vaccinated people? (5)
  • Why does the Netherlands report clearly higher volumes of side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines than other countries?
  • Why has the efficacy description of the Covid-19 vaccines published on the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut website been changed three times in the last few weeks? From “Covid-19 vaccines protect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 15 August 2021), via “Covid-19 vaccines protect against severe forms of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 7 September 2021), to, finally, “Covid-19 vaccines are indicated for active immunization to prevent the Covid-19 disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus” (on 27 September 2021). (6)

A couple of these points warrant a closer look. “Gain of function” and “Lab leak” As for “gain of function research” — research aiming at making viruses more dangerous, as was done at the Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, and financed by the United States — so far, I have not heard or read anything substantial. This type of research is done in so-called Biosafety Level 4 Laboratories, where work has been carried out for decades to see how animal viruses can be altered to make them dangerous to humans as well. So far, ARD and ZDF have given this topic a wide berth — despite the obvious need for a debate. One question worth exploring could be: Do we, as a society, want such research to be carried out? There are numerous reports on the “lab leak theory” – the assumption that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab. It is worth noting that last year, this idea was immediately labelled a conspiracy myth. Alternative media investigating this were banned from social media such as YouTube and Twitter and the information was deleted. Scientists who supported this theory found themselves under massive attack. Today, the “lab leak theory” is at least as plausible as the bat transmission theory. The American investigative journalist Paul Thacker published the results of his meticulous research in the British Medical Journal. Commenting on this, Dr. Ingrid Mühlhauser, professor of health sciences at Hamburg University writes:

“Step by step, he [Thacker] reveals how members of an American lab group deliberately concocted a conspiracy theory to disguise their lab accident at Wuhan as a conspiracy theory. This myth is supported by respected journals such as The Lancet. Science journalists and fact-checker services accept the information without any reflection. Participating scientists keep mum, either out of fear, or to avoid running the risk of losing their standing or research grants. For more than a year now, Facebook has blocked posts that question the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. If the lab accident theory is confirmed, then ZDF and other media will have defended conspiracy theories.”

Ivermectin and alternatives to vaccination For months now, it has been clear that effective and cheap treatments do exist for Covid-19, but their use is not allowed. The data on this is unequivocal. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these medications are indicative of the state of medicine today. Hydroxychloroquine is a drug known for decades and used routinely against malaria and rheumatic disorders. Last year, the drug was suddenly deemed dangerous. The statement by then-President Donald Trump that hydroxychloroquine would be a “game changer” did the rest to discredit the medication. The political reasoning no longer allowed a scientific debate on HCQ. In the spring, the catastrophic situation in India caused by the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported in the media (then still referred to as the Indian variant). But the fact that India rather quickly brought the situation under control, and that the use of Ivermectin in large states such as Uttar Pradesh had a decisive role in this, was not deemed newsworthy. (7) Ivermectin was granted a temporary authorisation in the Czech Republic and Slovakia for treating Covid-19 patients. This was at least reported by the MDR, albeit with a negative slant. In its report on possible medications, Bayerischer Rundfunk failed to even mention Ivermectin. As for hydroxychloroquine, only negative studies were cited, omitting all studies with positive results. In the summer of 2020, lab tests showed that the molecule Clofoctol was also effective against SARS-CoV-2. Until 2005, the antibiotic drug was sold in France and Italy under the commercial names of Octofene and Gramplus. The French authorities repeatedly blocked the Pasteur Institute in Lille from launching a study with Covid-19 patients. At the beginning of September, after several attempts, the first patients were recruited. Why are the health authorities taking such a strong stand against treatments, which have been available since the beginning of the pandemic? I would have liked to see some investigative research by the ARD here! It has been made clear that the new Covid vaccines could qualify for emergency use authorisation (EUA) only because there was no officially recognised treatment for SARS-CoV-2. This is not about celebrating any one Covid miracle drug. My aim is to highlight facts which have not been given due consideration. From the outset, the message given in public discourse was that vaccination was the only way out. The WHO even went so far as to change the definition of “herd immunity”, implying that it can only be achieved by vaccination and no longer by previous infection, as was previously the case. What about if the road chosen is a dead end? Questions on vaccine efficacy Data from countries with a particularly high vaccination rate show that infection with SARS-CoV-2 also in fully vaccinated people is more rule than exception. Dr. Kobi Haviv, Director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reports that between 85% and 90% of severe cases in his intensive care unit are patients who have had two jabs. (8) As regards Israel as a whole, the journal Science writes: “On 15 August, 514 Israelis were admitted to hospital with severe or critical Covid-19 disease … out of these 514 persons, 59% were fully vaccinated. Out of those vaccinated, 87% were 60 years or older.” Science quotes an Israeli government adviser, who explains: “One of the great stories coming out of Israel [is]: ‘The vaccines work, but not well enough’.” It is also now evident that, with the Delta variant, vaccinated people carry (and spread) the same viral load as unvaccinated people. What has this data situation brought about in Germany? — A lockdown specifically for unvaccinated people or, put somewhat euphemistically: the “2G rule”. In fact, society is being divided into two classes. Vaccinated people regain their freedom (as they do not risk endangering others), whereas unvaccinated people (who do risk endangering others) must undergo tests, and pay for them out of their pocket, and will no longer receive sick pay if quarantined. Moreover, employment bans and dismissals on the grounds of vaccination status are no longer out of the question, and health insurance funds may impose less favourable rates on the unvaccinated in the future. Why this pressure on unvaccinated people? This has no foundation in science and is damaging to our society. Antibodies produced by vaccination wane after only a few months. A look at Israel shows that after the second jab, there will be a third for the whole population, and then a fourth as recently announced. Those who fail to get a booster shot after six months will lose their status as immune and thus their “Green Pass” (the digital Covid-19 pass introduced in Israel). In the United States, President Joe Biden is talking about Covid-19 booster shots every 5 months. Marion Pepper, immunologist at the University of Washington, questions this strategy, explaining to The New York Times that repeated stimulation of the innate immune response can lead to a phenomenon called “immune fatigue”. It is a little discussed fact that natural infection allows a person to develop clearly stronger immunity. “Ultrapotent antibodies” or ”super immunity” have been found in people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the last year. These antibodies react against more than 20 different mutations of the virus and remain for longer than antibodies acquired via vaccination. After all, Health Minister Jens Spahn has now declared that proof of antibodies is also to be accepted. But to be officially recognized as immune you still have to be vaccinated. Who can understand this logic? A CNN interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID (under the NIH, the National Health Institutes) clearly illustrates the absurdity of the situation. People with natural immunity are still not a consideration in the minds of the politicians! I know a physician who is desperately trying to get an answer from the health authorities and the RKI to this problem: One of her patients presents an IgG antibody titer value of 400 AU/ml — clearly more than many vaccinated people. As her Covid-19 infection occurred more than six months ago, she has lost her immune status. The answer was: “Give her the jab!” — which the physician will not do, considering the titer value. A lack of basic journalistic understandingThe way out of the pandemic touted by our politicians and the media turns out to be a permanent vaccine subscription. Scientists advocating a different Covid approach are not able to reach out via public service media, as demonstrated again by the sometimes defamatory reporting on the video action #allesaufdentisch. Instead of discussing the content of the videos with the parties concerned, experts were sought out to discredit the campaign. By doing this, public service commit the very same error which they hold against #allesaufdentisch. Der Spiegel journalist Anton Rainer opined in the SWR interview about the video action, that these are not interviews in a classical sense: “In principle you see two people agreeing with each other.” Listening to the reporting by my broadcaster gave me stomach pains, and I was very annoyed by the lack of basic journalistic understanding of the need to let those with opposing views have their say. (9) I made my concerns known to those concerned and the editorial team by email. A typical comment in conferences is that a topic has “already been covered”. For example, when I brought up the high likelihood of underreporting of vaccine side effects. Yes, sure, the topic was discussed with in-house experts, who – no surprises here – concluded that there was no underreporting. “Opposing views” will be discussed here and there, but are rarely given a human face in such a way that broadcasters actually speak with people who hold critical views. Critics under pressureThe most vocal critics must count on house searches, prosecution, account suspensions, transfers or dismissal, or even referral to psychiatric care. Even if they hold opinions you do not share — this has no place in a state subject to the rule of law. In the United States, it is already being discussed whether criticising science should be labelled a hate crime. The Rockefeller Foundation has announced a grant of 13.5 million dollars to censor misinformation in the health field. WDR television broadcasting director Jörg Schönenborn declared that “facts are facts and they hold true”. If that was so, how is it then possible that scientists behind closed doors argue incessantly and even strongly disagree on some quite basic issues? As long as we are not making that clear, any assumption of supposed objectivity will lead to a dead end. We can only hope to edge closer to “reality” – and that is only possible with open exchange of ideas and scientific knowledge. What is happening now is no honest fight against “fake news”. Rather, we are left with the impression that any information, evidence, or discussion deviating from the official narrative is suppressed. A recent example is the factual and scientifically transparent video by IT specialist Marcel Barz. By analysing raw data, Barz was able to establish that the actual figures on excess deaths, hospital occupancy rates as well as infections did not correspond to those gleaned from the media and politicians in the last year and a half. He also demonstrates how you can present a perfect image of a pandemic using such data, and explains why he feels this is dishonest. After three days and 145,000 views, the video was deleted from YouTube (and reinstated only Barz after objected, and many others protested). The stated reason: “medical misinformation”. This begs the question: Who decided this, and on what grounds? The fact-checker from Volksverpetzer dismissed Marcel Barz as “fake”. The verdict by Correctiv was a bit milder (Barz has given a public and detailed reply). He is proved right by the document produced for the German Federal Ministry of Health, which shows that Covid-19-Patienten stood for no more than 2% of the hospital burden during 2020. Barz went to the press with his analysis but was ignored. In a functioning discourse, our media would invite him for a debate. Covid-related content has been deleted countless times, as shown by journalist Laurie Clarke in The British Medical Journal. Facebook and similar media are private companies and are thus free to decide what may be published on their platforms. But in doing so, are they also allowed to steer the discourse? Public service broadcasting could have an important balancing role, by offering an open exchange of opinion. Not so, unfortunately!

….

Google’s Wokeness Is A National Security Threat – Banned Hipster

https://bannedhipster.home.blog/2021/10/16/googles-wokeness-is-a-national-security-threat/

Remember this from 2018?After a dozen employees quit in protest, Google has reportedly decided not to renew its contract for military drone initiative Project Maven

Google’s relationship with the Department of Defence triggered a civil war inside the company and cast doubt on Google’s commitment to its old motto: “Don’t be evil.”

As part of an effort called Project Maven, Google provides the Pentagon with artificial intelligence technology that speeds up the process of analysing video images. Google’s participation in the program, which critics contend could help increase the accuracy of drone-missile strikes, sparked controversy both inside and outside of Google.

As was said at the time, you’ve never heard a single criticism from these Silicon Valley Leftists about Google working with China. Or Israel, for that matter. That would get shut down immediately. What has happened is that the Silicon Valley culture has become anti-American. They do not see themselves as Americans – and many of them are not, in fact, American. The whites at Google share the same hatred of traditional America as Jews; they share the class bigotry of the rest of the Professional Managerial class, and their religion – as Yarvin memorably described it, Progressive Idealism – is virulently anti-Christian. LGBT is the new Priest class of the PI religion, as Jews were to the Boomer Liberalism of their parent’s generation. In the same way these PI’s would attack Christians for being anti-LGBT, but never Muslims for being anti-LGBT, the point obviously isn’t anything specifically to do with LGBT, it is an attack on the American people, most of whom are Christian at least culturally. Google is a major, major supporter of mass immigration. We also know that Google actively censors non-Leftist viewpoints. Google worked closely with the Obama administration to stage coups and “Color Revolutions” in Arab countries targeted by Israel. Google is inherently a political company, and it is an extension of the Democratic party. The Pentagon is seen by these people as still a part of “Red America,” thus they stage these strikes about working with them. Now we have the public resignation of DoD’s Chief Software Officer, complaining that the United States has already lost the “AI War” to China, that various DoD computer security is “kindergarden level” and specifically calls out Google for their 2018 refusal to work with DoD. Pentagon Official Says He Resigned Because US Cybersecurity Is No Match for China

Chaillan also told the FT that US national security was being compromised by Google’s refusal to work with the Pentagon on AI.

Google stopped working with the Pentagon in 2018 after 12 employees quit over a project where Google helped the Pentagon make software that could improve the accuracy of drone strikes.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

Larry Romanoff’s article, How Does China Evaluate and Choose its Leaders? Understanding China’s University System, details a system China uses that could not be more different than America’s.

When you meet some who has entered the civil service in China’s central government, you can rest assured you are speaking to a person who is not only exceptionally well educated and astonishingly knowledgeable on a broad range of national issues, but is in the top 0.1% of a pool of 1.5 billion people. China’s government officials are all highly-educated and trained engineers, economists, sociologists, scientists, often at a Ph.D. level. We should here consider that the Chinese generally score about 10% higher on standard IQ tests than do Caucasian Westerners. When we couple this with the Chinese process of weeding out all but the top 0.1% from consideration, and add further the prospect of doing the weeding from a pool of 1.5 billion people, you might expect the individuals in China’s Central Government to be rather better qualified than those of most other countries. And they are.

Aside from serious scientific universities such as MIT or Stanford, America’s most elite universities, such as Harvard and Yale, are saddled with Affirmative Action, Jewish nepotism, anti-White and anti-Asian hidden quotas, and an education that is specifically anti-American. The “Wokeness” at the schools educate the new elites to hate America and Americans, and anti-whiteness and anti-Americanism is built into the programs. It’s been noted that China’s leadership is full of engineers and scientists, while America’s leadership is full of lawyers. China’s leadership class is Chinese themselves and pro-China. America’s leadership class is increasingly not American and increasingly openly anti-American.

In China, Chaillan said, private cyber and AI companies were at Beijing’s beck and call.

China is aiming to becoming the leading AI superpower by 2030, and a March report from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence said the US was “not prepared to defend the United States in the coming artificial intelligence (AI) era.”

Chaillan said it didn’t matter whether the US spent three times as much as China on defense because it was being allocated to the wrong areas, the FT reported.

Who, ultimately, are the Chinese engineers at Google loyal to? The Indians? The Pakistanis? It’s fairly obvious where the loyalties of Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergei Brin lie. This is what we mean when we talk about a Zionist-occupied government.At the very core are dedicated Zionists, and around that periphery are increasingly non-Americans, and all are ideologically anti-American. Similarly, the Soviet Union was controlled by a coalition of Jews and minority ethnic non-Russians, such as the Georgian Stalin. We have the exact same ruling class here in America.

The group says it hopes included in Google’s new AI policy will be the promise to never use consumer data in military operations or for mass surveillance, as well as a pledge never to develop military AI applications.

Of course, this is absurd. Google is nothing but mass surveillance. Google has, in fact, assisted China in setting up their censorship and surveillance infrastructure. Google has no issue with working with totalitarian regimes, what Google has a problem with is America and Americans. Google and other companies like Facebook should be nationalized. Regulation and anti-trust is not enough. The rest of America needs to begin the process of isolating and containing the Silicon Valley Leftist cultural plague. We do not have to be ruled by a cadre of purple-haired, facially pierced, non-binary “activists” that hate us and want us dead.

Contrast this with the Western system where politicians most often have no useful education and no relevant training or experience, and in fact political leadership of any Western nation has no credential requirements whatever, certainly not in education, experience or intelligence.

One of Canada’s recent Prime Ministers, Stephen Harper, had only a minor undergraduate degree and his only job was working in a corporate mail room when he joined the rump of a political party, became the party leader and eventually the Prime Minister. His successor, Justin Trudeau, was a school teacher whose father had been Canada’s Prime Minister many years prior, and whose only credential appeared to be a talent for working the political system. In Canada’s province of Alberta, a recent Premier was a former television news reporter, renowned more for being an habitual drunk than for intelligence or governing ability. US President George Bush was renowned for boasting that he never read any books, being nearly as painfully unintelligent as Ronald Reagan whose only credential was having been a C-class movie actor.

None of these men had a CV sufficient to qualify as a manager of a 7-11 and none demonstrated signs of either intelligence or governing ability, yet a ludicrous and absurd political system permitted them to become the CEO of nations and provinces.

An examination of the backgrounds and credentials of politicians in any Western nation will reveal mostly a collection of politically-ambitious misfits strikingly lacking in redeeming qualities. It is not a surprise that Western politicians are ranked lower than prostitutes, used-car salesmen and snakes in terms of both morality and trustworthiness. In one recent US public poll, the politicians of both houses of the entire US Congress were rated as less popular than cockroaches and lice. (1) It is accepted as a truism that all Western politicians will, after being elected, freely abandon the commitments made to the people immediately prior to being elected, political duplicity and cunning accepted as normal in all Western societies. This is so true that one US commentator recently remarked that “Of course, all politicians need to lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease that it’s troubling”. Such a thing is unheard of in China. Outright lying to the people would be fatal, but in the West dishonesty in politicians is accepted without a murmur.

America has already lost to China. What America needs to do is draw inward and deal with the parasite class that has caused so much damage in the last few decades. A country whose military is obsessed with transgenderism is not a serious country. A country who takes moral cues from pierced non-binary glorified web designers is not a serious country. Google had signaled its anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-white attitudes through their infamous “doodle” since the very beginning of the company. It’s a globalism for everyone except for Americans.

German state allows ALL businesses to ban unvaxxed customers, even for groceries & other essentials — RT World News

https://www.rt.com/news/537644-hesse-bans-unvaxxed-supermarkets/

16 Oct, 2021 02:15 / Updated 3 hours ago

The German state of Hesse has become the first to allow
businesses to deny the unvaccinated access even to basic necessities,
setting a troubling precedent as its neighbors wrestle with protests
against vaccination mandates.

Hessian supermarkets have
been granted permission to deny the unvaccinated the right to buy food
and other essentials, the state chancellery confirmed to German magazine
BILD on Friday. Under the new policy, stores can decide whether to
implement the ‘2G rule’, which means allowing entry only to the
vaccinated and recovered (‘geimpft’ and ‘genesen’ in German) or the more
lax ‘3G rule’, encompassing those who have tested negative for the
virus (getestet).



Also on rt.com
‘It’s about fairness’: Germany scraps Covid quarantine compensation for unvaccinated workers

Minister-President Volker Bouffier somewhat bafflingly told BILD
he hoped the new rule wouldn’t be widely implemented, explaining: “We
expect that this option will only be used on some days and that
businesses which cater to everyday needs will not make use of it.”

“The greatest protection is provided by vaccination. And still it is uncomplicated, unbureaucratic and free to get,” he boasted,
noting that masking and social distancing requirements would remain in
place for businesses that failed to adopt the more exclusionary 2G Rule.
In exchange for admitting only vaccinated or recovered people, 2G
businesses are allowed to forgo social distancing and mask mandates –
perhaps a tempting tradeoff after 18 months of burdensome face
coverings.

In addition to the new 2G option,
hospital staff who remain unvaccinated must be tested for Covid-19 twice
a week, and students are still required to mask up while seated in
class.

While at least eight other German states
have opened up the 2G option for certain businesses like bars,
restaurants, gyms, cinemas and brothels, Hesse is the first to allow the
rule at grocery stores and other retail shops.

Though
other European nations like Italy and France have implemented strict
vaccine requirements forbidding the unvaxxed from working (Italy) or
eating at cafes (France), most leaders have stopped short of directly
mandating jabs for their citizens. However, concerns about vaccine
passports have sent hundreds of thousands of people into the streets to
protest, even while countries like the US begin to reopen for travel –
to the vaccinated only, of course.


Also on rt.com
Hundreds blockade Italian ports as mandatory Covid-19 passes come into effect for all workers (VIDEOS)

PA school boards pull out of national organization for calling parents ‘domestic terrorists’

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/10/15/pa-school-boards-pull-out-of-national-organization-for-calling-parents-domestic-terrorists/
“Now is not the time for more politics and posturing,” state affiliate says in leaked memo. Go to Source Author: {Just The News}… Read more

Gender gestapo celebrate win as tin-eared UK judges overturn ban on puberty blockers for under-16s who need help, not hormones — RT Op-ed

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/535149-decision-allow-teenagers-gender-transitioning/

Damian Wilson is a UK journalist, ex-Fleet Street editor, financial industry consultant and political communications special advisor in the UK and EU.
A UK Court of Appeal decision to allow young teenagers to decide
on the first stage of gender transitioning is a blow for common sense, a
gross misreading of the public mood and an insult to every parent.
A 13-year-old child is
only just old enough to open their own account on Twitter, Instagram or
TikTok, but now the Court of Appeal in the UK has decided
they’re also of an age to decide on taking powerful puberty blockers as
they make up their mind whether they want to face the future as a man
or woman.

So let’s get this straight. In their first year of
becoming a teenager, they can’t drink, drive, vote, or have sex, but
they can make the decision to take growth-inhibiting hormones that will
delay the onset of puberty, with all the physical and mental impact that
means, while their school pals and peers embark on a prescription-free
path into a regular adulthood.



Also on rt.com
A new book, ‘The Transgender Issue’, is a tale of rampant victimhood that views straight white people as reactionary oddities

For reasons hard to fathom, the Court of Appeal has overturned a ruling made in the High Court just last December that determined children under the age of 13 considering gender reassignment were “highly unlikely”
to be mature enough to themselves give informed consent to be
prescribed puberty-blocking drugs, which it called an ‘experimental’
treatment that even those aged 14 or 15 would have difficulty
understanding. They even suggested that the doctors of teenagers under
18 may need to consult the courts for authorisation for medical
intervention.

As a result of that decision Tavistock suspended new
referrals for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for under-16s.
But now that’s all changed, in less than a year.

The court
decision announced today follows the launch of an appeal by Tavistock
and Portman NHS foundation trust, which, as NHS England’s only gender
identity development service for children, has the most skin in the
game. They disputed the outcome of the case brought against them by
24-year-old Keira Bell, who began taking puberty blockers at 16 but
later de-transitioned.

She
believes 16 is too young an age to make such a life-changing decision,
let alone ages 15, 14 or 13. Keira’s case was backed by the unnamed
mother of a teenage autistic girl on the waiting list for treatment. In
some circles, autistic teens are considered more prone to gender
dysphoria than neurotypical kids. But it’s just a theory, that’s all.

Gender dypsphoria – described by the NHS as “a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity”
– is at the centre of all this. While any responsible parent or
qualified medical specialist would probably want to explore the whys and
wherefores of a child’s desire to transition their sex, it seems that
judges are happy for children to self-diagnose, and leave the medical
experts to inject the GnRH analogues based on their young patient’s
say-so.



Also on rt.com
Trans activists will HATE Helen Joyce’s shocking new book as it dismantles their false ideology piece by piece

Last December, the High Court ruling stopping this was declared a
victory for common sense. A strike against a highly irresponsible
medical culture that, unlike that existing in any other field of
medicine or psychiatry, allowed a patient’s self-diagnosis – and a
minor’s, no less – to determine how they were treated. If a teenage girl
told doctors she really felt like a boy then that was it. She was a he.
End of.

Sometime in the early 2000s, this backwards protocol,
propagated by the shamefully indulgent, politically-driven gender
gestapo of West Coast USA academia, landed in the UK without anyone
really taking that much notice. But, and this is somewhat contentious,
once it became ‘a thing,’ suddenly gender dysphoria seemed everywhere.

Like the 1518 dancing plague
of Strasbourg, the idea just took hold and that was it. The gender
identity development service saw a surge in referrals beyond anything it
had experienced in the past.

In 2010-11, there were 134
referrals in England. By 2020-21, that figure had soared to 2,242.
Clearly, something is out of whack here. Like multiple personality
disorders, like anorexia, it’s hard to deny that, once these conditions
became more talked about, particularly among adolescent girls, more
cases began to appear. Is there a clue there?

Looking at Transgender trend figures from 2018-19, there were even referrals
of girls aged as young as three to the Tavistock Clinic. At that age,
they are just as likely to say they want to be a puppy or a unicorn as
they are to declare they’d rather be a boy. Why not take them to the
vet?



Also on rt.com
Is Royal Academy’s failed bid to cancel ‘transphobic’ artist a welcome turning point in gender debate?

If December’s ruling was a victory for common sense, this one is a
victory for imbecility. These crusading, tin-eared appeal-court judges
have desperately misread the public mood on this issue, which pits that
age-old concern of any loving parent simply wanting the best for their
offspring against progressive gender radicals pushing an ideology that
undermines those efforts.This decision is a retrograde step and the
judges should be ashamed.

George Galloway: Facebook is fighting to the death to stop those with the ‘wrong’ opinions from being heard — RT Op-ed

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/537580-galloway-facebook-whistleblower-clegg/

George Galloway was
a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV
and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter @georgegalloway
How convenient that Facebook ‘whistleblowers’ are emerging at
exactly the same time as the social media giant is seeking to “reduce
the presence of politics” on the site. What this means for freedom of
speech is glaringly obvious.
If you had told me during
the years I sat with Nick Clegg in the British Parliament that the
achingly liberal member for Sheffield Hallam – later to become deputy
prime minister of the UK and Sir Nick ­– would become chief censor of
the biggest public square on the planet, Facebook, I would never have
believed it.

In the 2010 general election, when Clegg got the Liberal Democrats off to a flying start in the televised debates, “I agree with Nick” became the catchphrase of his trailing opponents. What began as an expedient has now become compulsory.



Also on rt.com
How much do we REALLY know about the background of Facebook ‘whistleblower’ Frances Haugen?

Because if you’re on Facebook and Sir Nick Clegg takes a dislike to what you have to say, you won’t be heard for long.

I
declare an interest. I am heavily invested in free speech on Facebook. I
have 600,000 followers on there – more than nearly all UK political
figures – and an audience for my speeches and clips etc. of many
millions.

When I read Clegg’s pronunciamento recently that he was
going to cut back on political content on the platform I saw it as a
threat. Pictures of my breakfast are but a small part of my Facebook
oeuvre.

According to Clegg, “One
of the things we have heard from users both from the US and around the
world since the election is people want to see more friends, less
politics. So we have been testing ways in which we can reduce the
presence of politics for people’s Facebook experiences.”

Then I watched with fascination the orchestral manoeuvres in the dark
of a congressional inquiry into Facebook where a whistleblower, Frances
Haugen, was whistling a highly convenient tune for the powerful – in
the company and in the powerhouses of the establishment – and I realised
we were all being played. And that Nick Clegg is no longer a liberal.

Facebook will fight to the death to stop those with the “wrong” opinions from being heard. Cue: something must be done!

Facebook’s
Whistleblower A was heard throughout the world. Another whistleblower,
Julian Assange, has not been heard for many a year on account of his
incarceration in Belmarsh maximum security prison in London, facing the
rest of his life underground in an American Guantanamo.

Whistleblower
A was concerned about body-shaming on Instagram and other such
ephemera. Whistleblower Assange was concerned about bodies, quite dead,
at the hands of those like the congressional audience humming along with
confected horror at the tales of Whistleblower A.

And lo, out of
the west, comes news of a Whistleblower B. Another ex-Facebook employee,
Sophie Zhang, has volunteered her horror stories about Facebook Fake
News influencing elections all over the world.

Ms. B, a San
Francisco tribune, has not yet named and shamed, but the elections in
question are unlikely to be the ones – in Russia for example – when a
full-court NGO press was captured on video seeking to reduce the victory
of President Vladimir Putin’s parliamentary party, even if it meant
boosting the Communists!

More likely she has the likes of Donald
Trump in mind as the US rulers begin to show signs of meltdown at the
possibility of the Orange Man’s resurrection.



Also on rt.com
Facebook’s secret blacklist is a powerful tool for moderating thought and free speech, and projecting US foreign policy globally

No doubt Ms. Chang will manage to cite mysterious Ivans and Lis
who are still toiling ceaselessly to install favourable candidates in
office in a way the ENTIRE Western mass media and political class would
never dream of.

The mood music is clear. The wrong people have
turned out to be just too successful at persuading the public that our
rulers and their principal narratives are quite naked. They have no
clothes.

They must be stopped. And like the famous village in
Vietnam which had to be destroyed in order to save it, freedom of speech
must be extinguished in order to preserve it. It’s the liberal way…

“The Revenge Of The Fossil Fuels”

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/10/15/the-revenge-of-the-fossil-fuels/
“The Revenge Of The Fossil Fuels” Authored by James Rickards via DailyReckoning.com, What have the climate alarmists been screaming about for the past 40 years or so? Their agenda is well-known. They want to close nuclear plants; shut down coal electric generators; eliminate natural gas and oil-fired electrical plants; and substitute wind, solar and hydropower…