Category Archives: Uncategorised

The mainstream media have given up on truth

The Washington Post is openly calling on news outlets to abandon objectivity.

Writes Jenny Holland:

Journalism’s brief period of objectivity was an interregnum between the rough-and-tumble newspaper class wars of the early 20th century and whatever you want to call the pantomime hellscape of today. Now, that period of objectivity is officially dead and buried. It is clear from Downie’s article that the industry has been wholly captured. What used to be thought of as a workman-like job, in which you dug up facts and presented them to your readership, has been taken over by an elite clique of pampered millennials. Members of this clique went to all the same schools and have all the same opinions. Their sworn mission is to make sure their shrinking readership knows how ideologically pure they are. Factual reality – once the king of the newsroom – doesn’t come into the equation. The king is dead. Long live the king.

[…]

There is a silver lining in this op-ed, and I found it in the comments. Judging from the people commenting under the piece, even the ultra-liberal, vote-blue-no-matter-who readers of the Washington Post were not buying what Downie was trying to sell them.

One commenter wrote:

‘What’s really happening is young reporters are using emotional blackmail and not-very-sophisticated [postmodern] sophistry to excuse themselves from professional standards. I understand why new reporters would like to be liberated from dull, but necessary, professional standards, but I don’t understand why the grown-ups go along with it to the detriment of their profession.’

The biggest problem with journalists may not even be their recent swing to the left, their intolerance of differing opinions or their backstabbing newsrooms – all characteristics of younger, woke media staff. Instead, the biggest blindspot for journalists of generations new and old is their tendency to vastly overestimate their own importance, and vastly underestimate just how few people share their outlook outside their media bubbles.

I’m not sure this last conclusion is quite right. Journalists do not “vastly overestimate their own importance”. Among the “few people that share their outlook” are the vast majority of the policy makers. And that is all that matters.

Covid: A good summary of where we are now

Can be found here.

Excerpts:

I suspect that Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, top vaccine officials at FDA, were fired because they would not go along with this, while the feckless Peter Marks had no qualms about issuing a fake license. See the article this past week in Epoch Times about FOIA’d emails of Peter Marks at that time, where he said he would handle Gruber and Krause.

Fake you say? Yes, fake because after the license was issued, only EUA product was used. Because had licensed product been used, FDA could have gotten in trouble and so could Pfizer—because the vaccine had not met the standards for licensure, AND a licensed product had liability attached—it lost that magical liability waiver given to EUA products that were thought to be voluntary. The USG created a massive fraud on the public, making people believe they were getting a “safe and effective” licensed product when they were not.

[…]

What we are dealing with is a criminal conspiracy that includes DOD, Department of Justice, DHS, DHHS (FDA, CDC,NIH and other subagencies), all the 17 intel agencies, the White House and selected corporations. They have been working together for decades. Pharma commits crimes, and DOJ gives them a plea bargain, no one goes to jail, and they get to do it again. Some of the fines go to DOJ’s favorite charities.

[…]

I think that the medical enterprise was hijacked as a means to take over the world, because someone realized it could be used this way. First, it sucks up 20% of GDP, so there is a great deal of money that might be siphoned off. Second, it was a means to gain a lot of surveillance material, with online medical records. Third, it and doctors were trusted. Americans were convinced they had the best healthcare in the world, and it is only in the past 5-10 years that they realized this was far from true. Fourth, vaccines had a shiny patina. People believed in them. And for the 25 years that I have been closely observing vaccines, the federal government, and industry, have put unbelievable effort into shoring up the elusive “vaccine confidence” and demonizing “vaccine hesitancy.”

[…]

I think the desire of the government to inject us with a liquid of their choice, one that cannot be fully identified by the end-user, is the best way to explain why so much effort was put into vaccine propaganda pre-COVID. And also why so much effort was expended to make Americans think they needed a yearly flu shot, despite efficacy in the 30-40% range and a lack of evidence the shots prevented deaths. They were grooming us to accept frequent routine vaccinations as a fact of life. They avoided mRNA vaccines until now so as not to take the shine off the general vaccine ‘brand.’ They avoided trying to develop non-spike-based vaccines for COVID, despite knowing of the spike toxicity after 20 years of research. Thanks, Dr. Fauci.

[…]

Now the government, in cahoots with pharma, is developing flu and RSV mRNA vaccines. Maybe all of them will be made of mRNA. What can we trust right now? Why should we trust the FDA to do the right thing by us for any product it regulates?

But vaccines are only a part of the problem. There is the vaccine passport—which is still a “thing” in much of Europe, even now that we know the darn vaccines are worse than useless and the passport protects no one’s health. But it is both a great way to monitor vaccine compliance and establish a platform to which CBDCs can be added, with unknown additional mechanisms of surveillance and control. The goal of ultimate control is still with us.

[…]

COVID showed us that we had more useful drugs in the pantry (repurposed drugs) than we expected. If there is no Fauci, Walensky and Woodcock to suppress them next time, it won’t be so scary.

[…]

We all need to get a grip, and protect ourselves from propaganda, and stop the destruction of what we need to survive. Everyone needs to learn how to distinguish fact from spin. Start practicing as you read a news article, or watch TV. Which part of the story is fact? Which is spin/opinion/designed to make you believe something?

Once enough of us recognize what is going on, we can make a big enough stink and stop much of it. I think we can, if we are smart and work together. There are 8 billion of us, after all, and just some thousands of them. We need to educate their minions to come over to our side. Let’s create ourselves as the warriors we were put on this planet to be at this time in history.

Shocking Lab Investigation of Covid Vaccines

The real science is catching up with corrupt scientists, evil officials and naïve clergy

Dr. Mercola writes:

December 12, 2022, The Highwire posted a fascinating and shocking lab investigation of the COVID shots. Del Bigtree begins by reviewing some of the many alleged findings by organizations looking at the shots using various technologies.

Continue reading here.

Also, watch the 1 hour video at the top of the linked page. It is posted on Bitchute here as well.

At the 11:50 minute mark, the interviewed medical scientist, Dr. Ryan Cole, states: “Real science should always involve humility and the willingness to say: ‘It’s not about my ego, it’s about the issue and we’re trying to get to the best scientific truth we can with the methods we have now.'”

Contrast that with the infamous statement by the hugely (worldwide) influential and powerful US (now ex-)chief medical advisor to the president Dr. Anthony Fauci who said in an interview, when asked about people critical of his Covid policies: “I represent science”. In other words: “La science, c’est moi.”

Fauci was one of the many scientists on government payrolls around the world who kept repeating the “safe and effective” mantra about the still only experimental injections against Covid. Dr. Ryan Cole was never one of them.

I know who I trust more.

Contrast that also with the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, on 21st December 2021, said, without knowing the science:

“It’s not about me and my rights to choose, it’s about how I love my neighbour. Vaccination reduces my chances — doesn’t eliminate — but it reduces my chances of getting ill and reducing my chances of getting ill, reduces my chances of infecting others,” Welby told ITV news on Tuesday evening.

“It’s very simple, so I would say yes, to love one another as Jesus said, get vaccinated, get boosted,” he added.

Welby needs to repent.

For vaccine-hesitant people, it was never about “my right to choose”, at least not primarily. It was primarily about trust. How can one trust scientists in the pay of government, when same scientists propagate a policy that gives governments what they have craved down the ages: More power for themselves. They might be right in this case, but, because there are massive conflicts of interests involved, the circumstances demanded more proof than was available or provided.

The same vaccine-hesitant people observed how real debate and discussion about the safety and efficacy of the Covid injections was massively suppressed by the media. This behaviour raised suspicions. That is something the Archbishop has not addressed.

Ever since the beginning of Christianity, Christian clergy were the most important people standing between governments and their access to total, tyrannical worldly power in the style of Ancient Egypt or Rome. For they understood the dangers of worldly power. They understood the ungodly path any worldly power is in danger of treading. Worldly power is one of the three things Satan attempted to tempt Christ with in the desert. However, most of the clergy don’t even seem to know that any more. Worse: Even if they did, it seems most of them wouldn’t care anymore.

It’s one reason among many why Christianity is ripe for a complete reconstruction. Even more so now that, as the blogger Eugyppius writes, the “pre-pandemic world is gone forever“:

Mass containment has permanently transformed our societies and our cultures. It has cemented the cooperative relationship between the regime and the press, and it has changed the content and the tenor of our media. Drama and panic have always sold newspapers, but our new era is characterised by an unending self-reinforcing cyclone of hyperventilation journalism, the likes of which we’ve never seen before. For the foreseeable future, I think, we will careen from one crisis to the next.

The pandemic has also changed politics. We have all learned that our alleged liberal rights and freedoms are quaint fictions, which will evaporate in the face of any false emergency. This is one reason that the unceasing hysteria of the press is so ominous, for it represents a continual attempt to restore those extraordinary conditions in which the managers wield absolute power. Under the pretense of emergency, everything is permitted. The government can seal you inside your home, forbid you from seeing friends, and outlaw all protest. It can banish all criticism from the media, and with a bit more hyperventilation, it can probably even force-medicate you. In the pre-2020 world, of course, our governments could do all of these things as well. What is different now, is merely that many more people know that they can, and approve nevertheless.

P.S.: If you have read the above links, or have watched the video, and you have received one or more injection against Covid, you may be starting to worry. If so, please go to the bottom of the page of the Mercola text linked here and above and read the section titled “What to Do if You Got the Jab”. Of course, not being a medical expert myself, I cannot recommend any of the advice there personally. As stated before, it’s all a matter of trust.

UK oncologist warns of cancers rapidly developing post-Covid vaccination 

“I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental”

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist practising in the UK, recently wrote an open letter to the editor-in-chief of the medical journal The BMJ, urging the journal that harmful effects of Covid injections be “aired and debated immediately” because cancers and other diseases are rapidly progressing among “boosted” people.

Dr. Dalgleish is a Professor of Oncology at St George’s, University of London.  His letter to Dr. Kamran Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ, was written in support of a colleague’s plea to Dr. Abbasi that the BMJ make valid informed consent for Covid vaccination a priority topic.

Continue reading here.

See also here.

The Humanist Vision

As seen clearly by C.S. Lewis in his novel "That Hideous Strength"

In the conclusion of chapter 9, “Nominalism” of his last ever book, “The Biblical Structure of History”, Gary North writes:

Consider this: “For the humanist, the dynamics of history are in titanic man, as he imposes his will and idea on the world.” But dynamic man, being dynamic, is always changing. He must impose his will on the world in order to keep rival dynamic men from imposing their will on him. In his 1945 novel, That Hideous Strength, C. S. Lewis has a power-seeking villain say this. “It does really look as if we now had the power to dig ourselves in as a species for a pretty staggering period, to take control of our own destiny. If Science is really given a free hand it can now take over the human race and re-condition it: make man a really efficient animal. . . . Man has got to take charge of Man. That means, remember, that some men have got to take charge of the rest—which is another reason for cashing in on it as soon as one can. You and I want to be the people who do the taking charge, not the ones who are taken charge of.”

Why people don’t admit they’re wrong

The no longer know how to think critically

Todd Hayden has written an article (“Admit You’re Wrong, Or Die“) in which he observes that people are less able to admit they’re wrong than they used to be.

What is this? I am a pretty old guy, and I do remember a time when people were more flexible. Sure, no one likes to admit they’re wrong, but they actually used to do that, at least occasionally.

He looks for reasons:

I will stick to the idea that much of this resistance to absorbing the evidential truth and changing minds accordingly has to do with a decades-long priming. People in general no longer know up from down—as they blindly navigate the bizarre-o streets of the 2000s. Not much that their senses pick up is automatically, as it used to be, identified accurately.

He blames technology:

Anything our senses are asked to evaluate as evidence is rejected as such, like in a magic show. Nothing can be trusted anymore, until some certain type of authority says it can be. There’s the catch.

He also, briefly and obliquely, touches on education:

If you have nearly no system of determining reality (your senses and common sense), and have never been taught to critically think so you can ascertain truth with a blindfold on, then you are going to be looking for someone to whisper in your ear to describe what it is you are looking at but cannot see. [My emphasis, PwG]

I am currently reading a book by Gary North, his last, called “The Biblical Structure of History”, in which he lays out that modern historians, not basing their study on the presupposition of a creator God, have no way of referencing their perception of the past to anything fixed. Therefore, their history becomes something totally random and relative.

This perception of history became dominant soon after the first world war. It has by now percolated throughout society. The result is that people no longer know what to believe, but still must make their way through society and life. And so they latch on to “some certain type of authority” who tells them what’s up and what’s down, what’s right and what’s wrong. No matter how much it contradicts their “common sense”. And they believe it, and act accordingly.

Article on H.G. Wells

Excerpts as found on lewrockwell.com

This is the sci-fi fantasy of H.G. Wells and is the central theme to everything he wrote including his works of non-fiction. The subject on ways to reduce the world population was a troubling dilemma for Wells…not the reducing part, but the thought that there would be those so foolish as to forbid it.

You see, it was considered by some that the human species had found itself in a crisis by the 1900s. Europe, up until the 17th century had a population size that never exceeded roughly 100 million. But nearly doubled to 180 million in the 18th century, and doubled again to 390 million in the 19thcentury. H.G. Wells wrote of this “the extravagant swarm of new births” as “the essential disaster of the nineteenth century.” (1) Not war, not disease, not starvation, not abject poverty, but population growth was determined as the disaster of an entire century.

[Rothbard wants us to abolish the 20th century. Wells wants us to abolish the 19th. ]

The Wells that we have come to know today started his journey as a young boy winning a scholarship to study at the prestigious Normal School of Science (now called the Royal College of Science). His subject of choice was biology and his teacher, and quickly thereafter mentor, was none other than Thomas Huxley, otherwise known as “Darwin’s bulldog” (his words).

[…]

Through Huxley, Wells’ conception of the nature of humankind was formed with its foundation built upon the philosophies of Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus.

Because Wells is so very influenced by these men, in fact they form the very basis for his ethics; I thought it apt to share with you a few quotes.

In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1799), he wrote:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” [emphasis added]

In Charles Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” (no not his autobiography! Though he was very much spiritually conflicted with the social consequences of his philosophies…) stated his thoughts on directed breeding as such:

“No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” [emphasis added]

To the credit of Darwin (though the damage was already done), he included a disclaimer in his “The Descent of Man,” that if humankind were to take upon itself the enforcement of the so-called “forces of nature,” it would be at the cost of our “most noble qualities”, as Darwin states:

“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.” [emphasis added]

[From Darwin’s autobiography:]

“I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds…gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays…music [was a] very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for…music…My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts, but why this should have caused the atrophy of that part of the brain alone, on which the higher tastes depend, I cannot conceive… The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature.” (2)

What is the value of life, if in striving for our supposed “survival” we lose our most noble qualities? Why should we sacrifice our best qualities in a humiliating trade-off for a “contingent benefit” and “an overwhelming evil”?

[Wells:]

The ethical system laid out in Wells’ New Republic forbids the further growth of the “People of the Abyss”. In the past, Nature killed these off, and in some cases killing will still be necessary. And we should not be appalled by this task, as per Mr. Wells. Death for such people will mean merely “the end of the bitterness of failure, the merciful obliteration of weak and silly and pointless things.” Clearly the effecting of this will be morally justifiable according to Wells:

“The new ethics will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility, not a sort of night refuge for base spirits out of the void; and the alternative in right conduct between living fully, beautifully and efficiently will be to die. For a multitude of contemptible and silly creatures, fear-driven and helpless and useless, unhappy or hateful happy in the midst of squalid dishonour, feeble, ugly, inefficient, born of unrestrained lusts, and increasing and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity, the men of the New Republic will have little pity and less benevolence.” (5) [emphasis added]

If “the whole tenor of a man’s actions” shows him to be unfit to live, the New Republicans will exterminate him. They will not be squeamish about inflicting death because they will have a fuller sense of the possibilities of life. “They will have an ideal that will make killing worth the while.” The killing, Wells explains, will not be needlessly brutal. “All such killing will be done with an opiate.” Whether this will be administered forcibly or whether the victim will be persuaded to swallow it, he does not reveal. Selected criminals will be destroyed by the same means. The death penalty will also be used to prevent the transmission of genetic disorders. People suffering from genetically transmissible diseases will be forbidden to propagate, and will be killed if they do. (6)

As for the “swarms of black, and brown, and dirty-white, and yellow people”, who do not meet the new needs of efficiency, will, he insists “have to go”. It is “their portion to die out and disappear”. (7)

[…]

Wells wrote of the panic-stricken reaction to the alien invasion in his book “The War of the Worlds”:

“If one could have hung that June morning in a balloon in the blazing blue above London, every northward and eastward road running out of the infinite tangle of streets would have seemed stippled black with the streaming fugitives, each dot a human agony of terror and physical distress…Never before in the history of the world had such a mass of human beings moved and suffered together…without order and with a goal, six million people, unarmed and unprovisioned, driving headlong. It was the beginning of the rout of civilization, of the massacre of mankind.” (8) [emphasis added]

I think it no coincidence that our entertainment industry today, so heavily saturated with the influence of Wells’ propaganda, is obsessed with the theme of a post-apocalyptic world, the ever-revolving death game where its avatars are tested on their ability to survive at all cost. Through these adventures, we the audience are brought along and are taught how to feel the thrill of the hunt, the catharsis of the bludgeoning, the release that comes from mayhem. For we are the children of the ultimate revolution… the dawn of the great Purge.

[…]

Of Wells’ vision for a “Modern Religion” he [Julian Huxley] wrote:

‘…if religion is to develop unifying and directive power in the present confusion of human affairs it must adapt itself to this forward-looking, individuality-analyzing turn of mind; it must divest itself of its sacred histories…The desire for service, for subordination, for permanent effect, for an escape from the distressful pettiness and mortality of the individual life, is the undying element in every religious system.

The time has come to strip religion right down to that [service and subordination is all Wells wants to keep of the old relic of religion]…The explanation of why things are is an unnecessary effort…The essential fact…is the desire for religion and not how it came about…The first sentence in the modern creed must be, not “I believe,” but “I give myself.” ‘ (10) [emphasis added]

And to what are we to “give ourselves” to without any questions asked, but with a blind faith to worship what we are told is the good?

Wells explains it to us thus:

“The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will have become a great world movement as wide-spread and evident as socialism or communism. It will have taken the place of these movements very largely. It will be more than they were, it will be frankly a world religion. This large, loose assimilatory mass of movements, groups, and societies will be definitely and obviously attempting to swallow up the entire population of the world and become the new human community.” (11)

The rest of it is here.