Jon Entine writes again lamenting false alarms by scientists and journalists The Insect Apocalypse That Never Was. Excerpts in italics with my bolds. For the past four years, journalists and environmental bloggers have been churning out alarming stories that insects are vanishing, in the United States and globally. Limited available evidence lends credence to reasonable […]Bug Apocalypse Not! — Science Matters
from The American Mind, Claremont Institute https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/#null
“That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is”
A quick and dirty guide to regime propaganda
Gaslighting getting you down? Feel like the regime has dialed the Megaphone up to, and past, eleven? You’re not crazy. It’s definitely happening and likely to get worse as our masters’ ability to cope with reality further worsens—or worse, they gain the complete and absolute control they seek. They’re both scornful and terrified of dissent, which explains why they incessantly shriek at us and lie to our faces.
So, to help you navigate the twitstorm, I present a guide to seven of the regime’s most common, oft-deployed lies. This is not meant to be comprehensive. I’m sure there are tactics they use that either I haven’t crystalized or that aren’t front-of-mind at the moment. I encourage others to expand the catalogue with their own observations. The better we can understand how they try to manipulate us, the better we can resist and counter it all.
Let’s start with the Unholy Trinity of ruling class horse manure. These first three are similar, but subtle differences determine the ways they’re used in differing circumstances.
The Law of Merited Impossibility
The coinage is Rod Dreher’s and goes back to the early debates on homosexual marriage. As Dreher formulates it, the Law of Merited Impossibility holds: “That will never happen, and when it does, boy will you [homophobes, transphobes, racists, sexists, whatever] deserve it.”
This Law is used, first, to disarm resistance to the latest leftist enthusiasm. Whatever the innovation is, it will have no adverse consequences. None! Puberty blockers and disfiguring surgeries have no downsides whatsoever. How dare you suggest they might!
Its second purpose is to dismiss out of hand “slippery slope” arguments—despite, or because of, the fact that every single such argument over the last twenty years at least has proved true. Worried that allowing people to “self-identify” as whatever sex they want will lead to pervy 50-year-old men exposing themselves to’ tween girls? Insist, loudly and indignantly, that that will NEVER happen and anyone who suggests it might is an alarmist bigot with a heart full of hate.
The third purpose is to enforce the new caste system. Those who get to impose fresh irrational indignities on the rest of us are the upper caste. Those who object, or even have reservations, are lower. The latter are not allowed to harbor, much less express, any doubts. Whatever humiliation the upper caste has planned for us, we deserve and must meekly accept. Hence when said pervy 50-year-old actually does start waving around “her” equipment in the girls’ locker room, if any parent dares object, let ’em have it with both barrels. That thing that ten seconds ago you said would “never” happen? Now it’s righteous punishment for the retrograde.
The Law of Merited Impossibility has done wonders for the Left in helping to ram through a wide variety of radical societal changes and cow into silence all opposition. It’s currently busy destroying girls’ and women’s sports, an outcome that we were assured would “never” happen. Though one wonders what the ladies did do to deserve it.
The Law is a bit passé, though, because our rulers rarely any longer feel the need to reassure normie Americans that everything will turn out OK, that the things we most fear won’t happen. Mostly, the holders of the Megaphone just skip to the second half, the angry insistence that we deserve it
The Celebration Parallax
A parallax is the apparent difference in position of the same object seen from different vantage points. For instance, an analogue speedometer that reads sixty miles per hour to the driver, but fifty to the passenger—even though the needle itself is only in one place.
The Celebration Parallax may be stated as: “the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it.” In contemporary speech, on any “controversial” topic—or, to say better, regime priority—the decisive factor is the intent of the speaker. If she can be presumed to be celebrating the phenomenon under discussion, she may shout her approval from the rooftops. If not, he better shut up before someone comes along to shut him up.
Note also that the key distinction here is celebration versus non-celebration, not support versus opposition. One need not actually, clearly oppose the subject under discussion in order to be blameworthy. Declining or neglecting to celebrate it forcefully enough is enough. As in Stalin’s Russia, lack of enthusiastic clapping is regarded as opposition. The legitimacy of one’s right to state the same identical fact, in the same identical language, depends on who one is and what one thinks of it. Since the left presumes that all persons of color approve of the phenomena covered by the Celebration Parallax, the Parallax is really a test to distinguish allies from Deplorables.
To the best of my recollection, the origin of the Celebration Parallax arose from the need to defend “affirmative action,” a very unpopular policy since its inception. The party line therefore goes like this: People of color must be granted explicit preferences to overcome America’s “legacy of racism” so that we may “diversify” America’s power centers and end white male dominance, a move that—in addition to being necessary to address the country’s inherent racism—improves those institutions by infusing them with different and hitherto neglected points of view. Also, kids of color need “role models” who “look like themselves.”
But there is no such thing as “reverse discrimination,” which is itself a racist term, and there are no “quotas” (another racist term) whatsoever, but only “timetables,” “goals,” and measures to evaluate applicants and candidates “holistically.”
On no subject is the Parallax more prevalent than immigration. Depending on who’s doing the talking, the demographic transformation of the United States is either a glorious trend that portends a permanent Democratic majority and a more “vibrant” future, or else a “conspiracy theory” that is not happening in any way at all, no-how.
The Left insists that concerns from certain quarters that immigration policy in America (and Europe) amounts to a “great replacement” is a “dangerous,” “evil,” “racist,” “false” “conspiracy theory.” But a leftist New York Times columnist can write an article entitled “We Can Replace Them” and … nothing. Same fundamental point, except she’s all for it and her targets aren’t. A U.S. Senator can exult that demographic change will doom Republicans. Joe Biden himself can refer to an “unrelenting stream of immigration.” Except they’re celebrating it and calling for it. Anyone on the Right who uses the exact same words will not merely be denounced; the very fact pattern that is affirmed when Biden says it will be denied when the Rightist repeats it.
The Law of Salutary Contradiction
Which brings us to the Law of Salutary Contradiction, whose formulation is: “That’s not happening and it’s good that it is.” While the Law of Merited Impossibility applies to the future, this one is about the present. It’s what the ruling class immediately switches to after what they insisted would “never” happen is happening before everyone’s eyes.
Is the NSA spying on Tucker Carlson? That’s an insane conspiracy theory … which is also warranted by Tucker’s treasonous contacts with Russian officials as he seeks an interview with Putin.
Is the Biden Administration inviting in illegal immigrants, then putting them on military planes and shipping them to the heartland? Absolutely not … and these future Nobel Prize winners deserve their shot at the American Dream.
Once you learn to recognize this pattern, you see it everywhere. It is the cornerstone of ruling class rhetoric in the current year.
Turning from the Unholy Trinity, we see that the ruling class condemns all of us as entitled boors. In their eyes, we deserve nothing. We have no reasonable wants nor any just complaints. Our only role is to accept getting nothing and learning to like it.
Our masters bleat about “democracy” but have redefined the word to mean “getting exactly what we”—i.e., they—“want.” Any ostensibly “democratic” outcome that might result in us getting what we want is ipso facto illegitimate. Border wall? Fascist! Immigration enforcement? Racist and fascist! Law and order? Double racist and fascist! Better trade deals? Economically illiterate! An end to endless wars? Catastrophic! And also, somehow, “anti-Semitic.” Penis-free girls’ bathrooms? Transphobic!
No matter is too small, too local, too private, or too inconsequential to escape their gaze and slip their punishment. Bake the cake, bigot.
Mostly what they bleat, though, is anti-American, anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-rural, anti-Southern, anti-Red-state, anti-redneck, anti-working-class hate. Every media organ and cultural citadel blares this message loudly and incessantly.
The purpose is hard to figure. On one hand, it’s demoralizing, which certainly serves ruling class ends, and it fires up their coalition. On the other hand, if you’re trying to boil a frog, it’s best not to tell him the plan, as he might try to jump out of the pot.
Which brings us to:
The Lie-Back Imperative
This tactic, and the next one, are related to what Steve Sailer has called “The War on Noticing.”
The regime knows it’s in a difficult rhetorical position. The heart of its argument is that some people are inherently innocent and good while others are inherently guilty and bad and must be treated accordingly. To ears insufficiently attuned to this new understanding of justice, this can sound unjust. Tying moral worth to circumstances of birth? Not treating people equally? Punishing the living for the sins of the dead?
Why all this is—contrary to appearances, logic, and common sense—“just” requires considerable explanation. To the extent that people “get it,” they will sharply divide between those who say that the “advantaged” have it coming and those who object “No, I don’t.”
The problem for the regime, therefore, is that while its message is very effective at egging on its own side, it can be equally effective at alarming and rousing its targets. The ideal solution would be to come up with a public message that rallies the regime’s base while lulling its targets, but this turns out to be very difficult, if not impossible.
Another option is to forbid the targets from speaking up—hence the Celebration Parallax.
But the regime’s preferred mode is not merely to allow its targets to speak, but to require it—so long as the targets deny the regime apparatchik said what she said. Hence the response to “You are evil and deserve what’s coming to you” must be “You don’t think ill of me and wish me no harm.” Every punch in the face must be publicly rationalized, by the victim, as a massage. The purpose is partly to bully the frog into staying in the pot and partly a matter of humiliation. In the oft-quoted words of Anthony Daniels, “a society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”
A great many “conservatives” are not merely willing but eager to play along. Indeed, whole institutions of the establishment “Right” do little else but reassure their ostensible constituency that the Left not only doesn’t mean its proto-genocidal rhetoric but isn’t even saying it.
It is an odd feature of the current year that calling an avowed enemy a liar—publicly insisting that her plain words could not possibly mean what they plainly say—not only fails to provoke an angry denial but is welcomed by the liar herself. Anything to keep the regime’s targets somnambulant for as long as possible. The more Americans who wake up and realize that contemporary leftism is a revenge plot with themselves as its targets, the more will object and try to stop it. This is what the regime, at present, most fears and is trying to prevent.
The Enmity Counteraccusation
This one is perhaps the most brazen. As I put it elsewhere, “the enemy calls you its enemy for recognizing its enmity.”
As regime hacks spew vile, borderline—and sometimes explicitly—violent rhetoric at you, they will immediately wheel and counterattack if you dare object. Don’t appreciate being called evil because of your race? Then you are “divisive”! Dare put up your hands to block an incoming punch? That’s violence! You’re just supposed to take it.
They’re enemies who treat you like enemies while they insist that you treat them as friends. At least, though, unlike the housebroken “Right,” they stab you in the front.
A related point is that if you so much as speculate as to where their insane vitriol might lead the country, you will be accused of wishing for that outcome. It’s entirely possible that decades of anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian animosity, coupled with nation-destroying trade, immigration and foreign policies, will not lead to civil war. Then again, it’s entirely possible that they might. If they do, the ruling class and the Left will bear the blame. Naturally, though, they will blame us.
Indeed, they already are. Attempts to head off such a conflict by warning about it are treated as provocations intended to produce said conflict. One can be forgiven for wondering if their plan is to start it and then say we started it, sort of like insisting Poland triggered the Second World War by shooting back.
“You’re worthless, baby; and if you even think of trying to leave me, I’ll kill you”
Which brings us to the last. Deplorable Americans are loudly and incessantly said to be the worst people in the history of the planet, pure unadulterated evil, with no legitimate concerns, interests or grievances.
Well, OK. Then why live with us? Why treat as anathema even the most moderate, banal, attempt to allow some measure of federalism and local control?
There can only be two answers: either our masters know (or intuit) deep down that we can live without them but they can’t live without us, or else they want to keep us around to administer what they view as deserved punishment.
Being neither a psychiatrist nor a theologian, I could not say whether the roots of this behavior are psychotic or demonic, but in this layman’s judgement, it exhibits key characteristics of both.
But understand this: they hate you and want you cancelled and ostracized, or at least utterly subservient and obedient. You owe them no consideration. Their every argument, every sentence, every word are proffered in bad faith. As Mary McCarthy said of Lilian Hellman, “Every word she writes is a lie—including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”
The regime is powerful, which means we must calibrate our resistance carefully. But to think clearly, our minds must be free. Which requires understanding its rhetoric and seeing through it. I hope this short guide is useful in that effort.
Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute.
At Spectator, Real Jean Isaac explains How to End Biden’s Fake Climate Apocalypse. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.
If there’s no pushback against the Left, we’ll see a dramatic drop in our standard of living.
With the wave of executive orders and legislation coming from the Biden administration, and the cultural antics of his woke supporters, Biden’s war on fossil fuels has received insufficient attention. Yet energy is the lifeblood of our economy, and making traditional energy sources vastly more expensive is the single most destructive aspect of Biden’s policies. If this country does not successfully mobilize against these policies, the vast majority will experience a dramatic drop in their standard of living.
Supposedly the assault on fossil fuels — via regulation; cancellation of pipelines; concocting a huge, wholly imaginary “social cost of carbon”; taxes; and solar and wind mandates — is necessary to save…
View original post 1,462 more words
Be sure to visit the original site. It has several good cartoons.
John Tierney writes at City Journal The Panic Pandemic.
The first part of the article is a refresher on how it happened that all those who talked reasonably in the face of the panic narrative, were silenced and banished from public discourse. Included are many recognizable names: John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, Thomas Benfield, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, and the most reviled heretic, Scott Atlas. The excerpts below in italics (with my bolds and images) express Tierney’s conclusions to take away from this sorry mess.
Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus.
The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans—typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that…
View original post 1,245 more words
Claim 7. Temperatures have risen faster in recent years than ever before.
Truth: Remember that there is no such thing as a global temperature. It is the average of all of the reporting stations all over the world. The rapid rise in temperatures in the 1990s directly coincides with a decrease in the number of Siberian weather stations reporting due to the break-up of the Soviet Union.
Number of World Reporting Stations & Average Temperatures (vertical bars)
Source: Ross McKitrick, http://www.rossmckitrick.com/
Additionally, the “hottest year on record”, 1998, was an El Nino year so it was naturally hotter than the years just before and after. Another “cause” of rising average global temperatures is the urban heat island effect. Cities are hotter than rural areas. Many of the reporting stations that were once in undeveloped rural areas have experienced either suburban or urban development, or the stations have been moved to more urban settings. It is well documented that some have been, seemingly intentionally, relocated near or at heat sources such as paved parking lots and air conditioners.
One reason for relocation near buildings or other structures could be that new automatic-reporting equipment needs to be connected by cable. Rather than dig up parking lots or roads to install units in a grassy or protected area, many have opted to locate them where they can be directly connected without involving costly excavation, although such sites do not meet the stated requirements. Instead of excluding data from stations that are poorly situated, a convoluted mathematical algorithm (scheme) is used to “correct” it to presumed pre-industrial levels. See illustrations below.
Urban area plus mathematical correction algorithm equals pristine nature
Source: “The Influence of anthropic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data” Slide 21, Powerpoint presentation to the American Chemical Society, Denver CO via Webinar, August 28 2011 by Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph ON Canada http://www.rossmckitrick.com/general-overviews.html
Proposed rating of reporting stations with regard to surroundings:
Figure 3. U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) station exposure at sites representative of each CRN class: CRN 1, a clear flat surface with sensors located at least 100 m from artificial heating and vegetation ground cover <10 cm high; CRN 2, same as CRN 1 with surrounding vegetation <25 cm and artificial heating sources within 30 m; CRN 3, same as CRN 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 m; CRN 4, artificial heating sources <10 m; and CRN 5, sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source.
Source: “Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends,” Souleymane Fall, Anthony Watts, John Nielsen‐Gammon, Evan Jones, Dev Niyogi, John R. Christy,5and Roger A. Pielke Sr., Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 116, D116, D14120 doi:10.1029/2010JD015146, 2011
See other examples below of poor placement of temperature reporting stations from “Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?” The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating, Dr. David Evans, 11 Nov 2010 (last updated 28 Feb 2011) Web Address: jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruption.pdf
Claim 7 source is book, Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy has Corrupted Science, 2016
The article below from Epoch Times reveals the problem that inflates Covid-19 case numbers. PCR tests are great diagnostic tests for confirming the source of an illness; PCR is a terrible screening test for non-symtomatic people. You may also read the original article using the link at the end.
World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus gives a press conference at Geneva’s WHO headquarters on Feb. 24, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMATION
WHO Changes CCP Virus Test Criteria in Attempt to Reduce False Positives
BY MEILING LEE January 23, 2021 Updated: January 24, 2021
In updated guidance published on Jan. 20, the WHO said that lab experts and health care practitioners should also consider the patient’s history and epidemiological risk factors alongside the PCR test in diagnosing the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
The new guidance could result in significantly fewer daily cases.
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information,” the guidance says.
It’s unclear why the health agency waited over a year to release the new directive. The WHO didn’t reply to an inquiry from The Epoch Times.
Scientists and physicians have raised concerns for many months of an over-reliance on and a misuse of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool since it can’t differentiate between a live infectious virus from an inactivated virus fragment that is not infectious.
Additionally, the high cycle threshold values of most PCR tests—at 40 cycles or higher—increases the risk of false positives. A higher threshold value indicates less viral load and that the person is less likely to be infectious, while a person with a lower cycle threshold value has a higher viral load, or is more infectious.
The WHO did not specify what the threshold value cutoff should be for a positive diagnosis, but said to only “determine if [a] manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.”
However, it clarified that when the prevalence of the CCP virus is low, “the risk of false positive increases” meaning that “the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity [of the PCR test].”
SARS-CoV-2 is the scientific name for the CCP virus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says its PCR tests have a cycle threshold cutoff of 40 cycles. The federal agency finally included information on cycle threshold value in its Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 for laboratories on Nov. 12, 2020.
But many medical experts consider a threshold value cutoff of 40 cycles to only return false positives since samples that go through many amplification cycles will pick up negligible RNA sequences regardless if the virus is inactivate or the viral load is exceedingly low to pose any problem.
Prior to the CCP virus pandemic, for individuals to be considered a case, they must test positive and show clinical signs and symptoms. But to be counted as a CCP virus case, only a positive PCR test is required. And no matter how many times an individual is tested, each positive test is counted as a separate case.
The WHO is now advising that a positive PCR test that does “not correspond with the clinical presentation” should be verified by taking “a new specimen” and retesting it.
This advice may also help lower CCP virus cases in hospitals as it more clearly defines who is considered a hospitalized case.
The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) Director of International Relations Dr. Layla McCay confirmed to talkRADIO that a percentage of hospitalized patients officially counted as positive cases were actually being treated for different illnesses not related to COVID-19. They had only tested positive for the disease at the hospital without displaying any symptoms.https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=EpochTimes&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1346363750006317056&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Fwho-changes-ccp-virus-test-criteria-in-attempt-to-reduce-false-positives_3668064.html&siteScreenName=EpochTimes&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
Dr Layla McCay, NHS Confederation director, confirms to Julia that the hospital figures for “Covid patients” include patients who are not being treated for Covid but have simply tested positive while being treated for something else.@JuliaHB1 | @LaylaMcCay pic.twitter.com/xSud6LW13M
— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) January 5, 2021
“It is correct that in hospital, people who tested positive for COVID will be the full range of symptoms,” McCay said. “Some will have it as an aside to some other problem for which they’re in the hospital.”
The day after the WHO released its new guidance, Chief Medical Adviser to President Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said the United States would rejoin the organization.
“As such, I am honored to announce that the United States will remain a member of the World Health Organization,” Fauci said. “Yesterday, President Biden signed letters retracting the previous administration’s announcement to withdraw from the organization, and those letters have been transmitted to the secretary-general of the United Nations and to you Dr. Tedros, my dear friend.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is the director-general of the WHO.
“The United States also intends to fulfill its financial obligations to the organizations,” Fauci added.
In July last year, the Trump administration pulled out of the WHO over its alleged role in helping the Chinese communist regime cover up the severity of the CCP virus.
There have been mixed responses from Congress over Biden’s decision to rejoin the WHO.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) introduced a bill (pdf) on Jan. 21 to “prohibit the availability of United States contributions to the World Health Organization until Congress receives a full report on China and the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other purposes.”
She said in a statement: “The WHO is China-centric and panders to Beijing at every turn. There is no reason U.S. taxpayers should contribute more than $400 million annually to an organization that covered for China and failed to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Prior to former President Donald Trump withdrawing from the WHO, the United States contributed the most money to the health agency, according to State Department statistics.
Disturbingly, some scientists dependent on global warming funding also suggest only global warming explains that heatwave. However, they ignore the fact that the heatwave’s clear skies reduce the local greenhouse effect driven by water vapor. Additionally, global warming can’t explain cold events such as Europe’s record cold just 2 months earlier. So, beware! The media…The Truth About Heat Waves — Watts Up With That?
By Tucker Carlson.
For video, click this link https://www.bitchute.com/embed/Ah2XxgQ83tu4/
According to the latest CDC data, 67% of all American adults have received the coronavirus vaccine so far. …
In some ways, the administration has done something amazing. Get the vaccine or else. That was their message. Most people did. But not everyone. There are still holdouts. These are not people who haven’t heard of the vaccine or can’t afford it, or can’t just find a dose. It’s free, it’s everywhere and the media never stop talking about it. Every news hour is a Pfizer commercial.
These are people who just don’t want to take it. Many of them have already recovered from COVID and have active antibodies. They don’t need the vaccine. Should people take medicine they don’t need? Apparently, they don’t think so.
Others may have religious objections. That used to be considered a valid reason, back when our leaders acknowledge God is more powerful than themselves. Still, others may have noticed the vaccine was developed very quickly — the first universal coronavirus vaccine ever — and still to this day has not received FDA approval. Maybe that gives them pause. Maybe there are other reasons, including the stunningly high death rate on the government’s vaccine harm database, or the reports of young people developing cardiac emergencies in response to the shot.
Maybe all of the above. We don’t know, and actually, at this point, it doesn’t matter. The Biden administration is no longer accepting excuses.
On CNN this morning, the secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, not a doctor, a politician, announced he plans to make every last American take this drug. If you don’t take the shot, you’ll wind up on a government list. …
The Biden administration is no longer pro-choice. It’s an odd thing to say on many levels, but especially now. The pandemic is waning. Very clearly. Very few people in this country are dying from this virus at this point. It’s hardly a health emergency anymore. But Becerra isn’t arguing it is.
Instead, he’s saying the government has spent so much money on the coronavirus, that the Biden administration has a right to go door-to-door to intimidate you into taking the vaccine and keep track of you if you don’t. The government paid, so you owe them that. If you disobey, you’re choosing death. …
What can the government force into your body?
So, does the Biden Administration have a right, based on the money they spend fighting these diseases, to your medical information? Do they have a right to know your HIV status? Why not? Can HHS force you to take antibiotics for your TB? Xanax for your anxiety? Thorazine for your mania? And while we’re at it, why are we letting irresponsible, defective people reproduce? Vagrants, mental patients, even QAnon people, can all have children? Why’s that? Why aren’t we sterilizing them?
Sound crazy? It’s happened before, on a huge scale. …
We’ve seen this before, more than a century ago. In the early 1900s, officials in Boston decided to make an example of a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson.
Jacobson refused to take the government-mandated smallpox vaccine, and he had good reason for it. He’d already taken the vaccine in Sweden as a child, and nearly died because of it. Jacobson fought the mandate. He took his case to the Supreme Court, which, in the end, ruled against him. That was a brand new precedent, then, as now.
It didn’t take long for the government to use its new authority to force other medical procedures on the American population. After the Jacobson decision, Virginia passed a law authorizing the involuntary sterilization of people the state deemed to be “feeble-minded,” or mentally ill.
In a landmark decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whom we revere most of the time, ruled that the same legal framework that justifies mandatory vaccination laws also permits the government to sterilize people against their will. He was explicit about the connection.
“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes,” Holmes wrote. By 1930, dozens of states were forcing women to undergo involuntary sterilization, and more than 60,000 American women were sterilized by the government against their will.
Things like that tend to happen when a distracted citizen population allows the government to dictate what medical procedures they get, what drugs they take. This is a well-known and horrifying chapter in American history, so you’d think the news media might point this out. But just the opposite. Just yesterday, the saddest of the CNN anchors begs the administration to make vaccines mandatory …
The media demanding forced vaccinations. That shouldn’t surprise you. They’re not in the business to inform the public, they’re in the business for power. They couldn’t get jobs in finance, but this gives them a little swath. That’s literally why they have the jobs they do, and they love their new power.
What’s interesting is no other organized groups of sensible people who aren’t emotionally damaged like your average cable news anchor, none of them are saying anything either. Why not?
Veterans’ groups, for example, have stayed silent as the Pentagon floats the idea of mandatory vaccinations for all soldiers. …
Those of us who are older than 22 remember it well. The Pentagon has forced soldiers to take untested experimental vaccines before, it happened in Iraq. Troops there had to take the anthrax vaccine. What happened?
Many of those soldiers are eligible for disability benefits through the VA, because that vaccine caused serious long-term complications — including infertility, lupus, paralysis, blindness, and neurological damage.
Those effects weren’t obvious at first. They took years to surface. But on CNN, military analysts ignore that, and are instead begging for the Pentagon to force another drug on soldiers — and if they don’t comply, they should be arrested immediately.
This isn’t making sense. Surely someone has an ulterior motive:
What’s going on here? It’s so obviously unnecessary and vindictive that it makes you wonder what this is really about.
At the very moment that the risk for young people dying from the coronavirus hits zero, they’re telling us that soldiers should be arrested and go to jail if they don’t get the vaccine. They’re telling you that you’ll end up in a government database if you don’t comply, and that government agents will be showing up and knocking on your door. What’s really going on?