Author Archives: rg

Like the Curious Bride in “Bluebeard”

Investigating the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex leads inexorably to a place of horror.

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD, MPH says he has found strong indicators of “eminent Scripps Institute virologist, Kristian Andersen”, changing his tune on the possibility of the Covid virus having been engineered. On 31st January 2020 he still thought parts of the genome “(potentially) look engineered”. Then, on 4th February 2020, “shortly after a phone conference with Dr. Fauci and others—Dr. Andersen completely changed his tune. By then, the decision had been to submit a letter to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine regarding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

For more than a year thereafter, anyone suggesting an artificial, lab-engineered source of the virus was vilified mercilessly in the press. Then suddenly and strangely, it became an allowed opinion. Despite however the enormity of this suggestion, the media are strangely silent about it.

McCollough comments:

What on earth could inspire a virologist to adopt a posture of such Machiavellian duplicity about an infectious agent that—as he well knew—was about to inflict a catastrophe on all of mankind? He had to have known that such pronouncements—coming from a virologist of his eminence—would likely retard a thorough and impartial investigation of the virus’s origin.

Contemplating this question this evening, I thought Bluebeard’s young bride when she discovers the chamber of horrors in her husband’s castle. I suspect that Tess Lawrie felt the same way in her encounter with Dr. Andrew Hill, which she recounted in the short documentary film Dear Andy.

I have blogged about that documentary film here.

Propaganda Restricts Speech More Than Censorship Does

Writes Caitlin Johnstone:

The biggest impediment to free speech is people’s belief that they have it. Not censorship. Not refusal to platform critical voices. Not the war on journalism. It’s the fact that most people are propagandized into saying what the powerful want them to say, and don’t know it.

What makes our dilemma so historically unique is that we live under an empire which makes extensive use of the post-Bernays science of mass-scale psychological manipulation to trick its subjects into believing that they are thinking, speaking, and gathering information freely. In this way our rulers suppress any revolution long before it starts, not by making people’s lives better, nor by violent repression, but by manipulating people into thinking there’s nothing to revolt against, because they have no rulers and they are already free.

[. . .]

This problem can be addressed simply by bringing awareness to it in every way we can. Manipulation only works if you don’t know it’s happening, so drawing attention to it and describing how it happens in as many ways as possible helps people start seeing through it.

The Proper Attitude Towards Truth

It exists, but is never fully knowable by humans

The Christian, or at least Christian-based attitude towards truth is that an objective truth exists, but is never fully knowable. Not by humans, that is. Only God knows the whole truth. However, truth is approachable. We can come close to it – or move away from it. We are called by God to come as close to it as we possibly can. As we say during baptism: “With the help of God, we will.”

Part of the age-old struggle against Christianity is to call this stance into question. It can be done in two ways. One is to insist that the objective truth is out there AND that it is knowable by humans. This is the enlightenment or “modern” stance. (The – usually unspoken – implication is that those who know the truth automatically have the right to rule over those who don’t – and be it only for benevolently guiding and protecting the latter.)

The other way to negate the Christian theory of truth is to deny the existence of an objective truth altogether. This is the “post-modern” stance. Ironically, this theory leads necessarily and immediately to the proclamation of an ostensible, incontrovertible “truth”, namely that there is only one driving force in society, and that is the will to power. (Everything else, including the Christian claim, is a clever ruse to cover up this will to power.)

Interestingly, the “modern” and “postmodern” stances complement each other: If there is no truth but power, then those who “know the truth”, i.e. “have the power”, have the right to use it no matter what.

Did anyone say “satanic”?

I was prompted to write the above after reading this. Thierry Breton, an EU commissioner, who unironically calls himself “the enforcer”, is going to the US to tell Big Tech companies to “join the [EU] code of practice on disinformation”. The author of the above linked article comments:

And who gets to decide the truth? Hunter Biden? Joe Biden? Dr. Anthony Fauci? Hillary Clinton and her totally discredited Russia campaign? I guess the answer of the day is Thierry Breton. As “The Enforcer”, he is apparently in a unique position to understand the truth about everything. 

When Pilate asked the famous question: “What is truth?” (John 18:38), Jesus chose not to answer the man of power.

Not to worry: We now have Thierry Breton.

Something smells of sulphur.

They are going after your kids

Insidious propaganda from the BBC

The BBC is incentivising children to break the commandment tohonour father and mother.

Writes Eric Meder in his newsletter of today:

The worst type of manipulation is one that targets children. And that is the kind of manipulation that Big Tech companies and the Government are doing. Recently, the BBC released an article called “Earth Day: How to talk to your parents about climate change”

[See here, remove gap: www.bbc. co.uk/news/science-environment-65339214?ck_subscriber_id=1916028067]

The start of the article says “You want to go vegan to help the planet, but you’re not paying for the shopping. You think trains are better than planes, but your dad books the summer holiday. Young people are some of the world’s most powerful climate leaders and want rapid action to tackle the problem.”

This is very manipulative writing. It’s using phrases like “you want” to put the reader in a position that they might not even be in. Then, they reinforce it by trying to be relatable.

It’s easy to read something like this when you are young and identify with it. Because they are writing it in a specific way. A self-righteous way. They are telling the children that it’s their DUTY to educate their parents.

This makes the children think that they have a responsibility. And they reinforce that responsibility with social pressure.

In the article they talk about three different points, How to talk about going meat-free, How to talk about flying less, and How to talk about being waste free.

Throughout the article they ask young kids/adults for advice on how they can talk to (or manipulate) their parents into following these agendas.

So, let’s take a look at these three different points and the advice that BBC is giving out to children in talking to their parents.

In the first point, How to talk about going meat-free, they talk about Ilse, who at 13 years old did research about climate change and read that cutting out red meat was a good start.

Because of this information she decided to go vegetarian. Her parents admitted that at first it was a burden, but they adapted and started cooking only vegetarian meals even though they all miss the flavor of meat.

Then in the second point, How to talk about flying less, a 21 year old named Phoebe convinced her family to go somewhere by train instead of flying abroad. Phoebe’s advice to children is ”Say something like, ‘I’m really scared about my future, these are the reason I want to do something’,”

That’s not great advice, in fact it sounds like borderline fear tactics or emotional blackmail.

Finally, in the third point, How to talk about being waste-free, in this section a 20 year old named Becky convinced her family to be waste free. She said that you need to be well-informed to show your family you have done your research.

And after that, she says you should do things like “explain why it will make their lives easier or cheaper,” and “Make connections with things they care about.”.

I was shocked when I read this article. It is a blatant attempt to manipulate children.

They even mentioned a UK based campaign called ‘Teach the Parent’ in the article.

It’s shameless to go after the youth for spreading an agenda, especially this deceptively. Members of the youth have a key role, and that is to learn, not teach.

And as adults, you have an important role as well. And that role is to teach. And part of teaching is understanding.

You have to understand that the youth of today is being manipulated.

So, when you hear them preaching, and you hear them feeling self-righteous, remember it is because of manipulation. And instead of getting angry at them, we need to retaliate with calm education.

If we get angry at the younger generation for being this way, it will only add fuel to their fire.

If you have kids, I recommend that you keep a close eye on what they consume content wise. And make sure that you teach them critical thinking skills. Because if they don’t think for themselves, someone else will think for them.

I hope you enjoyed this article. Please share our blog with your friends and family. Thank you! Eric Meder

Christianity is now in a post-Constantinian era

Writes Justo L. González in the second volume of his “The Story of Christianity”:

One of the main issues confronted by all Christians in the twenty-first century is how to live in the post-Constantinian era. What is meant by this phrase is that the church can no longer count on the political support that it enjoyed since the times of Constantine. As we have seen in the preceding chapters, in a process beginning with the American and French Revolutions, Western Christianity had to face the challenge of secular states that, although not always hostile, tended to ignore it. For Eastern Christianity, on the other hand, that process began when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453.

(p. 373)

What Caleb said to Joshua

He gave an honest report and did not fearmonger

From Joshua 14:

I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions, 8 but my fellow Israelites who went up with me made the hearts of the people melt in fear. I, however, followed the Lord my God wholeheartedly. 

The Metaphysical Presumptions of Science

Are derived from Christianity, says Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson, while interviewing British theologian, academic and author Dr. Nigel Biggar (under the title “Separating Good from Evil in the British Empire“), gives a brief lecture on the five metaphysical presumptions of science. He says (link prompted):

They are metaphysical presumptions which you have to accept before you can operate as a scientist.

You have to believe there is a logos or logic in the objective world. Youi have to believe there is an objective world. You have to believe that that logic is apprehensible. You have to believe that apprehending that logic is a moral good. Because otherwise why would you bother? And then you have to believe that truth in relation to that apprehension is the most important orienting principle.

Those are all metaphysical presumptions. I actually think they are metaphysical presumptions that are derived from Christianity itself, which is why science emerged in Europe and not elsewhere.

“Can you name >5 unvaxxed Amish who died from COVID?” 

Why not? They are "supposed to be" dying in droves!

Writes Steve Kirsch:

The Amish didn’t lockdown, social distance, mask, or take a vaccine. It was business as usual. Few died. I offered $2,500 for anyone who could name >5 Amish who died. No takers. Just excuses.

Update (video, see also text here): The Amish followed none of the guidelines, didn’t vaccinate etc. And had, according to Steve Kirsch, an at least 90% lower death rate from Covid.

The real “misinformation” peddlers

Here’s someone the BBC in its zeal to root out “mis- and disinformation” surprisingly missed.

From Tom Woods‘ newsletter from today:

If the world would stop being insane for five minutes, I could get things done around here.

Howard Forman, a prime spreader of Covid misinformation at Yale, just posted this:
Apoorva Mandavilli, the woman in the picture, spread nonstop misinformation about Covid via her New York Times columns, exaggerating the numbers and death rate to the point that even the Times itself had to correct her. She claimed without evidence that schools were especially dangerous sources of illness. She also said it was “racist” to consider the origins of Covid.

It was nonstop lies and lunacy from her pen — and now a Yale professor endorses her as someone qualified to fight against medical misinformation.

Sometimes I wonder if the absurdity of it all is deliberate, and intended to demoralize us.

At any rate, the comments slightly restored my faith in mankind. There were many, many of them, and as far as I can see they were all from people aghast at this. Examples:
The great Harvey Risch is at Yale, so I hate to say that everyone from Yale obviously needs to be ignored at this point, but let’s say everyone except Harvey Risch.

“Misinformation,” whether medical or otherwise, has obviously come to mean: information we don’t want you to have.

Another thing a lot of these people didn’t want you to have was, you know, a job — unless they decided you were “essential.” So maybe it’s not such a bad idea to have something in your back pocket for in case they come after us again.