“Statins are not the only class of safe drugs still under lock and key. Medical information is available to more people than ever before, and Americans are buying more drugs and making more-sophisticated choices about their health. Yet access to everything from insulin to Viagra still requires a day off from work and a trip to the doctor’s office. For Americans growing more knowledgeable about the specifics of self-care, the prescription regime presents a significant and sometimes insurmountable barrier.”
Kerry Howley “Locking Up Life-Saving Drugs”
“From a civil libertarian perspective, it’s clear enough why the unequal treatment of gay parents is objectionable: The human desire for family isn’t exclusive to heterosexuals, and attempts to prevent gays from raising families both stigmatize them and threaten to deprive them of an important component of a full life. But these barriers to adoption should also offend anyone concerned about family values—about ensuring that all children, especially those who have suffered in the past, find loving homes.”
Julian Sanchez “All Happy Families”
25 Years Ago
August/September 1995
“The law was the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it gives the feds veto rights over such issues as: whether a prospective employer can ask a would-be truck driver if he has epilepsy; how far grab bars must be from the back walls of toilet stalls; what surfaces are permitted for subway platforms; how restaurant seating must be arranged; and dozens of other aspects of running businesses and city governments. The law has created an entire industry around interpreting it and, as the old cliché goes, provided plenty of work for lawyers, if not for the handicapped.”
Brian Doherty “Unreasonable Accommodation”
“As government deadlines for zero-emission vehicles draw closer, the scientific research community is telling politicians to pull the plug on the only vaguely plausible form of such a contraption: the electric car. Recent studies…all conclude that given the state of battery technology, the limitations and expected costs of the vehicles, and the anticipated environmental benefits, electric cars have a long way to go before they’re up to speed.”
Nick Gillespie “Electric Blues”
30 Years Ago
August/September 1990
“Americans like to think of themselves as the world’s leading democrats, but, by the usual measures, we’re none too pleased with our own democracy. Voter turnout is low and getting lower; around 40 percent is standard for a statewide primary. People intensely distrust the politicos who represent them. Given the chance—as on the California primary ballot—voters will support just about any ‘ethics’ initiative that promises to control the people’s supposed representatives.”
Virginia I. Postrel “Democracy Blues”
“Today’s intellectuals and reformers have little respect for the automobile—or for automobile culture. The car’s very convenience seems an indulgence, a waste of resources and money. ‘The Soviet Union’s greatest contribution to world peace was the fact that it did not put a car in every Soviet citizen’s garage,’ says Ralph Nader.”
Fred Smith “Autonomy”
45 Years Ago
August/September 1975
“For most people, daily newspapers or television news programs are lifelong textbooks. In their own fashion, journalists are the world’s teachers who present ‘lessons’ in the form of news stories. The picture that emerges from these lessons is not unlike what emerges from most high schools and colleges: disjointed stories with no apparent connections. What daily journalism offers is not, strictly speaking, news (important changes in the status quo that can be verified), but gossip. The changes that are reported are not really changes, or they are not really important, or they are too-soon shown to be unimportant. In short, the daily journalism textbook is a random sample of incomplete information. It lacks completeness because it is all flat surfaces, and no foreground, my word for the unknown, still-to-occur events that would shed some light on the real changes and true importance of today’s events. It is this failing that helps to strangle the chance for a science of journalism.”
Dennis Chase “Foregrounding the News”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YL2w2g
via IFTTT
William Briggs and Jon Krakauer wrote a sobering Op-Ed about the tragedy that gave rise to U.S. v. Cruikshank. Here is an excerpt:
The Colfax massacre was ghastly, and so was its aftermath. A young, white New York lawyer named J.R. Beckwith had recently been appointed U.S. attorney for Louisiana; he got the job of prosecuting the Colfax murders. Beckwith’s 150 pages of indictments listed 32 counts and named 98 defendants. After six months, with no help from the federal government he represented, Beckwith had managed to arrest only seven of the defendants. The first trial, in March of 1874 in New Orleans, featured an eloquent and capable Beckwith doing battle against an all-star team of white-supremacist trial attorneys. It resulted in a hung jury.
In the retrial a few months later, a federal jury found just three defendants guilty of conspiring to violate the civil rights of the victims. A U.S. Supreme Court justice, Joseph P. Bradley, who opposed the abolition of slavery and despised Reconstruction, had participated in the first days of the retrial as a second judge while riding circuit, as justices did in those days, then departed. But three weeks after the trial was over, he came back to New Orleans and overturned even the minimal conspiracy verdicts. The split decision sent the case, U.S. v. Cruikshank, to the Supreme Court.
In March 1876, Bradley and his fellow Supreme Court justices decreed that he was correct in rescinding the convictions of William Cruikshank and the other white defendants, ruling that although the 14th Amendment gave the federal government authority to act against violations of civil rights by state governments, it did not apply to acts of racist violence by private citizens against other citizens. Furthermore, the court ludicrously declared, the prosecution failed to show that crimes against the murdered Black men were committed “on account of their race or color.” All 98 defendants escaped accountability, emboldening white supremacists across the land.
I didn’t realize that Colfax erected a monument in support of the lynchers:
As Americans debate the merit of tearing down monuments to founding fathers, a monument to the men who massacred Black Americans in Colfax 147 years ago stands unopposed and largely unnoticed. Two blocks off Main Street, a 12-foot marble obelisk is the focal point of the Colfax cemetery. An inscription carved into its base declares it was “erected to the memory of the heroes” who “fell in the Colfax Riot fighting for white supremacy.” On the north side of the present-day courthouse, a historical marker reads, “On this site occurred the Colfax Riot in which three white men and 150 negroes were slain” and added that the episode “marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South.”
This monument should no longer stand.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3b6i0D3
via IFTTT
William Briggs and Jon Krakauer wrote a sobering Op-Ed about the tragedy that gave rise to U.S. v. Cruikshank. Here is an excerpt:
The Colfax massacre was ghastly, and so was its aftermath. A young, white New York lawyer named J.R. Beckwith had recently been appointed U.S. attorney for Louisiana; he got the job of prosecuting the Colfax murders. Beckwith’s 150 pages of indictments listed 32 counts and named 98 defendants. After six months, with no help from the federal government he represented, Beckwith had managed to arrest only seven of the defendants. The first trial, in March of 1874 in New Orleans, featured an eloquent and capable Beckwith doing battle against an all-star team of white-supremacist trial attorneys. It resulted in a hung jury.
In the retrial a few months later, a federal jury found just three defendants guilty of conspiring to violate the civil rights of the victims. A U.S. Supreme Court justice, Joseph P. Bradley, who opposed the abolition of slavery and despised Reconstruction, had participated in the first days of the retrial as a second judge while riding circuit, as justices did in those days, then departed. But three weeks after the trial was over, he came back to New Orleans and overturned even the minimal conspiracy verdicts. The split decision sent the case, U.S. v. Cruikshank, to the Supreme Court.
In March 1876, Bradley and his fellow Supreme Court justices decreed that he was correct in rescinding the convictions of William Cruikshank and the other white defendants, ruling that although the 14th Amendment gave the federal government authority to act against violations of civil rights by state governments, it did not apply to acts of racist violence by private citizens against other citizens. Furthermore, the court ludicrously declared, the prosecution failed to show that crimes against the murdered Black men were committed “on account of their race or color.” All 98 defendants escaped accountability, emboldening white supremacists across the land.
I didn’t realize that Colfax erected a monument in support of the lynchers:
As Americans debate the merit of tearing down monuments to founding fathers, a monument to the men who massacred Black Americans in Colfax 147 years ago stands unopposed and largely unnoticed. Two blocks off Main Street, a 12-foot marble obelisk is the focal point of the Colfax cemetery. An inscription carved into its base declares it was “erected to the memory of the heroes” who “fell in the Colfax Riot fighting for white supremacy.” On the north side of the present-day courthouse, a historical marker reads, “On this site occurred the Colfax Riot in which three white men and 150 negroes were slain” and added that the episode “marked the end of carpetbag misrule in the South.”
This monument should no longer stand.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3b6i0D3
via IFTTT
Generations of law students learn to venerate Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison: he found that President Jefferson violated the law, but the Court lacked authority to issue the requested remedy. Political genius, right? Alas, far too many students learn, from the first week of class, that this sort of ju jitsu is the ideal form of judging. (Not my students). A young John Roberts no doubt enjoyed that day of ConLaw class. (Who are we kidding, Roberts developed a crush on Marshall as soon as the young pup learned to read.) And, it seems that the Justices of the Florida Supreme Court may have learned a similar lesson.
Representative Geraldine Thompson wants us to undo Governor Ron DeSantis’s appointment of Judge Renatha Francis to fill a vacancy in office on this Court. Thompson argues that the Florida Constitution requires Judge Francis to have been a member of the Florida Bar for ten years at the time of the appointment, which Judge Francis undisputedly was not. Thompson asks us to invalidate the appointment, require the judicial nominating commission to certify a new list of candidates, and order the Governor to appoint someone from the new list.
The Governor did exceed his authority in making this appointment. In a nutshell, when a governor fills by appointment a vacant judicial office, the appointee must be constitutionally eligible for that office at the time of the appointment. But that is not the end of the analysis, because the remedy Thompson seeks is legally unavailable under these circumstances. There is no legal justification for us to require a replacement appointment from a new list of candidates, rather than from the one that is already before the Governor.And the correct remedy(an appointment from the existing list of eligible nominees) would be contrary to Thompson’s stated objectives in filing this case. Therefore, we hold Thompson to the remedy she requested and deny her petition.
Poor Representative Thompson. She sought mandamus in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, received a favorable ruling, but didn’t get what she wanted. Sounds familiar, huh? William Marbury could not be reached for comment.
And what a way to welcome Justice Francis to the court: The Court held her appointment was illegal, but nothing can be done about it! This opinion must be the iciest welcome to a high court since a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar challenged Justice Black’s appointment. (See Will Baude’s excellent discussion of Ex Parte Levitt).
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hzyvKh
via IFTTT
Generations of law students learn to venerate Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison: he found that President Jefferson violated the law, but the Court lacked authority to issue the requested remedy. Political genius, right? Alas, far too many students learn, from the first week of class, that this sort of ju jitsu is the ideal form of judging. (Not my students). A young John Roberts no doubt enjoyed that day of ConLaw class. (Who are we kidding, Roberts developed a crush on Marshall as soon as the young pup learned to read.) And, it seems that the Justices of the Florida Supreme Court may have learned a similar lesson.
Representative Geraldine Thompson wants us to undo Governor Ron DeSantis’s appointment of Judge Renatha Francis to fill a vacancy in office on this Court. Thompson argues that the Florida Constitution requires Judge Francis to have been a member of the Florida Bar for ten years at the time of the appointment, which Judge Francis undisputedly was not. Thompson asks us to invalidate the appointment, require the judicial nominating commission to certify a new list of candidates, and order the Governor to appoint someone from the new list.
The Governor did exceed his authority in making this appointment. In a nutshell, when a governor fills by appointment a vacant judicial office, the appointee must be constitutionally eligible for that office at the time of the appointment. But that is not the end of the analysis, because the remedy Thompson seeks is legally unavailable under these circumstances. There is no legal justification for us to require a replacement appointment from a new list of candidates, rather than from the one that is already before the Governor.And the correct remedy(an appointment from the existing list of eligible nominees) would be contrary to Thompson’s stated objectives in filing this case. Therefore, we hold Thompson to the remedy she requested and deny her petition.
Poor Representative Thompson. She sought mandamus in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, received a favorable ruling, but didn’t get what she wanted. Sounds familiar, huh? William Marbury could not be reached for comment.
And what a way to welcome Justice Francis to the court: The Court held her appointment was illegal, but nothing can be done about it! This opinion must be the iciest welcome to a high court since a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar challenged Justice Black’s appointment. (See Will Baude’s excellent discussion of Ex Parte Levitt).
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hzyvKh
via IFTTT
Among many similar globalist states, The UK State is a public-private partnership between government, financial institutions, multinational corporations, global think tanks, and well funded third sector organisations, such as so called non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and large international charities.
Through a labyrinthine structure of direct funding, grant making and philanthropy, the UK State is a cohesive globalist organisation that works with selected academics, scientific institutions and mainstream media (MSM) outlets to advance a tightly controlled, predetermined narrative.
This designed consensus serves the the interests and global ambitions of a tiny group of disproportionately wealthy people.
This group of parasites, often misleadingly referred to as the “elite,” exploit all humanity for their own gain and to consolidate and enhance their power. They control the money supply and the global debt, which is a debt owed to them.
Human beings are forced to pay tax which, via government procurement, flows directly to the private corporations they own. War, security, infrastructure projects, education and health care provide profits and are used by the parasite class to socially engineer society.
Globally, they fund all political parties, with any realistic chance of gaining power, they own the MSM and spend billions lobbying policy makers.
Through think tanks and the actions of “independent” political activists, such as the FPAction Network, they directly fund political campaigns in exchange for the politician’s loyalty to them, not to the electorate.
Through their tax exempt grant making foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), they control the scientific, medical and academic orthodoxy.
This global network of oligarchs is moving towards the final stages of its long held plan to construct a single global system of governance. Often referred to as the New World Order (NWO), it is a collaboration between supranational political organisations, like the United Nations and the European Union, controlled scientific authorities, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), global financial institutions, including the World Bank, IMF, ECB and Bank for International Settlements (BIS), globalist organisations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), NGO’s like the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and policy making thinks tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.
The UK State is one, prominent tentacle of the emerging global governance system. It has capitalised on the COVID 19 crisis to create the conditions for a new global economic and political model. While COVID 19 appears to be a nasty strain of the common coronavirus, in Part 2 we will discuss how the UK State has spun a fake narrative about the disease to further the interests of it’s globalist, oligarch masters. Managing a response to a pandemic is merely the deceptive justification for the planned re-engineering of society.
In partnership with Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the BMGF, the WEF were chief architects of Event 201 which plotted, in quite precise detail, the global lockdown and the world’s media response to a global coronavirus pandemic. Event 201 was staged merely a matter of months before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out. Both the government lockdown and MSM response have proceeded exactly as they predicted.
To say this is all just a coincidence, and not worthy of further scrutiny, is beyond obtuse. The WEF’s extensive and detailed COVID 19 Action Platform was up and running on March 12th 2020. The day after the WHO declared a global COVID 19 pandemic.
It is clear from the WEF’s own words, that they see COVID 19 as a fantastic opportunity. They state:
The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making…….As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.”
This is a proposal for global governance which supersedes national sovereignty. It is as simple as that.
It is remarkable that there are still so many who accuse any who point to this long standing New World Order plan, extensively documented and spoken about by political leaders for generations, of being so called conspiracy theorists. One wonders if these people can read.
Referencing the COVID 19 opportunities, one of the founders, and current executive chairman, of the WEF Klaus Schwab recently wrote:
A sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable. To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.
Capitalism requires a reset because the model of closed shopcrony capitalism, operated by the global parasite class for centuries, has reached the limits of growth. Therefore they need to create a new economic paradigm (the Great Reset) both to further centralise and consolidate their power and to fix their failing business model.
Following the 2008 banking collapse, while the people were forced to suffer austerity to bail out the banks with a form of highly selective crony socialism, the parasite class simply carried on piling up the debt.
In the Basel Capital Accords III, supposedly designed to stop the wild market speculations of banks which caused the collapse, they effectively reduced the liquidity (capital reserve) requirements for banks, allowing them to lend even more.
This process of allowing banks to create FIAT currency out of nothing has inevitably led to a global debt of approximately $260 trillion, which is more than three times the size of the planets GDP.
However, this is small potatoes compared to the scale of the financial products derivatives market. Estimated to be somewhere between $600 trillion to more than $1 quadrillion. While some say this is only the notional amount of the debt tied up in derivative contracts, the fact remains this is all debt.
Cumulatively, there isn’t enough productivity on Earth even to service the interest on these debts, let alone pay them. Ultimately this is debt owed to the oligarchs who control the world’s system of central banks. It is a Mickey Mouse system allowing monopolists to seize assets using their own funny money.
While the power to create all FIAT currency, out of nothing but debt creation, has afforded them immense economic and political control, 2008 demonstrated that their usury fraud can, and certainly will, collapse. Hence the Great Reset. Responding to a pandemic, or saving lives, has nothing to do with it.
While Technocracy, rule by technocrats appointed or elected for their particular expertise, may sound appealing to some, the model proposed relies upon the destruction of nations states to be replaced by a distant global technocratic order that serves only the interests of its founding oligarchs and financial benefactors.
This technocratic system was outlined in 1974 by former US ambassador Richard N. Gardner, member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission, in his article The Hard Road To World Order:
Never has there been such widespread recognition by the world’s intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis. Never has there been such an extraordinary growth in the constructive potential of transnational private organizations – not just multinational corporations but international associations of every kind in which like-minded persons around the world weave effective patterns of global action…
…
The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction… but rather in… inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis… providing methods for changing the law and enforcing it as it changes and developing the perception of common interests…
In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down …
…but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
The institutions of limited jurisdiction, such as the IPCC and WHO, are already in place directing national government policy across the world. In Britain, it is the role of the UK State to deliver the obligatory policy changes in order to erode national sovereignty and create the global governance technocracy. All globalist states are essentially unconstitutional and treasonous.
The common interest, determined by the technocrat class at the behest of their corporate oligarch paymasters, is currently replacing individual liberties and freedoms. The human being is becoming little more than a unit to be managed and directed and, where necessary, disposed of.
Inalienable human rights are being ignored utterly in pursuit of the common interest.
The global COVID 19 crisis is a catalysing event which has been misused to bring about the Great Reset. In order to convince the people to comply with their orders, the UK State has inculcated the population into a state of fear.
States around the world have practised social engineering using deception, by proselytising an unquestioning faith in an illusory form of science (scientism), behaviour modification, unlawful regulation and propaganda. They have used their obedient MSM to convince their peoples that the threat of COVID 19 is significantly greater than it actually is.
In Part 2 we will focus on the deception of the UK State. However, the same can be said for all other globalist states that have similarly responded to the claimed pandemic.
COVID 19 has been exploited in order to replace our inalienable human rights with an enforced obligation to obey public health orders.Public health has become biosecurity and there is no longer any such thing as a healthy human being. All humans are now biohazards and biohazards must be controlled or removed from society for the common good.
With the British people living in unwarranted fear, the UK State has been able to introduce draconian anti-democratic (quite literally) legislation.
In other circumstances this would have been impossible without significant revolt. Terrorising the public was essential to convince them to believe that the State had to remove all their rights and freedoms in order to keep them safe.
Initially deceiving the public that the “emergency measures” would be temporary, further behaviour modification was then used to force people to comply with a lengthening list of totalitarian regulations. The objective was to move people towards passively accepting the dictatorship of a surveillance state re-branded as “the new normal.” Thus far, it appears most people have been sufficiently frightened to meekly accept their enslavement.
Throughout the Great Reset transition, the public face of the globalist project has been Bill Gates. However, while Gates has used his wealth to seize control of global public health policy, he is just the current front man for World Order 2.0. It is the technological possibilities presented by the 4th Industrial Revolution which the architects of the world order are capitalising upon.
Pilot schemes, such as the BMGF backed West African Wellness Pass, are already underway. By linking biometric identification, along the lines of the BMGF funded, Rockefeller and U.N backed ID 2020, with cashless payment systems, all transactions can be centrally controlled in the rapidly approaching cashless society.
When your biometric identity includes your vaccine immunity status, there will be no necessity to legislate to make vaccines “compulsory.” Thus avoiding any contentious public debate. As long as you fully comply with your orders, you will be allowed controlled access to social and economic activity.
Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”
While vaccines may not be compulsory you won’t realistically be able to participate in society, employment, run a business or receive benefits, without the appropriate vaccine or immunity status.
The BMGF have already invested more than $21 million in an MIT project to create a microneedle vaccine delivery system that will inject a reactive die under the recipients skin which can then be scanned by a reader. This pattern will act like an indelible bar code tattoo, enabling the global authorities to monitor and control your whereabouts and behaviour.
The New Zealand State has already decided to remove people from their homes and place them in quarantine facilities (detention centres controlled by the military).
With an estimated population of 5 million and just 22 alleged deaths from COVID 19 in the entire country (a population mortality risk of 0.0004%), and no deaths at all for nearly three months, clearly these measures are not a response to any genuine threat from COVID 19.
Having complete control over the testing and attribution of disease status affords the biosecurity State the power to potentially remove and detain its political enemies and dissenters without trial. Those ordered to enforce biosecurity, in the “new normal,” have exactly the same degree of authoritarian power that was invested in similar rights abusers such as the Gestapo and the Stasi. Does history ever teach us anything?
This quarantine policy in New Zealand is designed to maintain the level of fear and accustom the population to dictatorship. It also appears to be a provocation that may encourage insurrection and revolt. With a monopoly on violence and the use of force, violent uprisings invariably benefit the authoritarian State. It allows them to claim legitimacy for an even more oppressive “crack down.”
Like Event 201, this is another example of the quite extraordinary prescience of the people who form global governance policy. They can not only predict, in almost perfect detail, what the media will discover and report, but also nature itself.
Removing the “infected” from their homes and incarcerating them in detention centres mirrors the policy suggestion of Dr Michael Ryan from the WHO. While New Zealand is the first nominally democratic state to raid family homes and remove people by force, it certainly won’t be the last. The UK State has already given itself the power to do so in the Health Protections (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
World economic activity will be administered by biosecurity States and based upon sustainable development goals. This new, centrally planned, global economy will be restricted only to permitted businesses.
Prior to his departure as governor of the Bank of England, in lockstep with the Great Reset, Mark Carney warned that companies that don’t follow the correct sustainability policies, “will go bankrupt without question.”In other words, lines of credit, without which business cannot hope to function, will be limited only to those who adopt the approved polices.
This new economy will have very limited employment. Carney’s successor Andrew Bailey has already stated that it would be important not to keep people in “unproductive jobs” and that job losses, as a result of the COVID 19 crisis, were inevitable.
They would not have been inevitable had globalist State’s, like the UK, not responded to the crisis by shutting down the world’s productive economy.
The preposterous spin of the bankers and carefully chosen economists that the UK will simply bounce back from an unprecedented 20% drop in GDP is absurd. With official UK unemployment of 2.7 million, more than doubling in a single year, these numbers are merely the tip of a very large, looming iceberg.
There are currently an additional estimated 7.8 million British workers furloughed. That scheme is due to end in a couple of months. The management consultancy firm McKinsey & Company estimate that 7.6 million UK jobs are at risk.
This will, as ever, disproportionately impact the lowest paid, with analysis suggesting that more than 50% of those at risk of unemployment are already in jobs paying less than £10 per hour.
These are the unproductive jobs and livelihoods Bailey wants to get rid of. Across Europe and the Americas staggering levels of unemployment are seemingly unavoidable. It is not unreasonable to envisage at least 6 million long term unemployed in the UK. With the same pattern common to many developed nations, the social, economic and health impacts of this are almost beyond comprehension.
Many have long been warning, that the toll taken by the Lockdown response to the supposed COVID 19 pandemic will be far worse than the disease itself. This awful prospect is becoming increasingly apparent.
There is no reason to believe official UK COVID 19 statistics, something we’ll discuss in Part 2. However, even if we accept that more than 41,000 people have died as a direct result of COVID 19, this sad loss is likely to be relatively inconsequential compared to the loss of life as a direct result of the UK State’s Lockdown policy.
It is important to recognise that the global lockdown response was a political choice made to create the economic condition for the Great Reset. It was not unavoidable, and there is no evidence that lockdowns make any difference to COVID 19 mortality. South Korea, Japan and Sweden did not impose full lockdowns and all have better COVID 19 outcomes that the UK.
Research by the UK Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the UK Home Office estimates that 200,000 people could die as a result of re-orientating the NHS, to treat COVID 19 and little else, and from the economic effects of Lockdown polices. Unfortunately, this “worst case” scenario appears conservative.
An example of the derisory “scientism” used to terrorise the population, in April the University of Glasgow published a study estimating average years of life lost (YLL) for individuals who allegedly died from COVID 19. Saying these were alleged deaths does not imply that no one died from COVID 19, only that we really have no idea how many.
Nonetheless, using quite bizarre methodology, the Glasgow researchers managed to calculate that the median YYL due to COVID 19 was 13 years for men and 11 years for women. This study was based upon analysis of the outbreak in Italy, but was cited by the UK MSM to scare the British. More than 59% of supposed COVID 19 decedents in Italy were over 80 years old.
Current median life expectancy in the UK is 80 years for males and 83 years for females. Nearly 60% of those who have died from COVID 19 in the UK were over 80 years old and 20% were over 90 years old.
Analysis from the National Records of Scotland (NRS) shows that median age of death, supposedly from COVID 19, was 81 for men and 85 for woman. Statistically indistinguishable from quite normal mortality.
The University of Glasgow researchers are funded by the Wellcome Trust who are the tax exempt philanthropic foundation of the multinational pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. The University of Glasgow are also grant recipients of the COVID 19 Therapeutics Accelerator established by the Wellcome Trust, Mastercard and the BMGF.
The Wellcome Trust and the BMGF want the world to be vaccinated with their experimental COVID 19 vaccines. Despite the fact that decades of trying have failed to produce a successful vaccine against SARS, or indeed for any coronavirus strain, and that usually vaccine development takes at least 10 years, GSK and the BMGF are among those who, for some apparently inexplicable reason, are confident they can produce a successful vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 in a matter of months.
Obviously there is a huge conflict of financial interest at the heart of the University of Glasgow’s spurious claims about YLL’s. Pointing out this fact makes you a conspiracy theorist. Though ignoring it requires either a considerable degree of gullibility or a wilful intent to deceive.
Between 2001 and 2016 economic and social deprivation in England consistently accounted for a genuinely alarming 9.3 year average reduced life expectancy (YLL’s) for males and, by 2016, shortened women’s lives by 7.4 years. The economic devastation that will be wrought by the entirely unnecessary Lockdown policy of the UK State, and others, measured in YLL’s, will dwarf those lost to COVID 19.
This is the price we will all pay for the parasite class’ determination to bring about the Great Reset and change the world’s economy and society to one centrally planned and controlled absolutely by them. They are currently spending billions globally on propaganda to convince us to accept their “new normal.”
They require our consent if their plans are going to work. This means, in order to scupper them, all we need to do is refuse to comply.While peaceful protest is an important unifying right, ultimately it is what we do every day that will make the difference. There is a nasty, fascist authoritarianism building in the UK, and elsewhere. Yet all we need to do in order to defeat it is refuse, en masse, to follow its orders.
Unfortunately, the UK State are among those throwing everything at convincing us to believe their frankly ridiculous, scientifically illiterate, COVID 19 propaganda narrative. We only need wander to the local supermarket and witness the faceless, muzzled majority to know the deception is working.
We are faced with an existential choice. We can either give up any childish pretensions that we live in a free and open democratic society that values liberty and plurality of opinion, and accept the fascist dictatorial rule of a global technocratic parasite, or we can exercise conscious resistance and refuse to comply with the orders of the State.
In Part 2, we will dissect the mechanism of the UK State’s scamdemic. While Lockdown policies originate at a global level, by looking at how the UK State has implemented them, and the deception they have used to convince the public to accept them, the true nature of the scamdemic can be revealed.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QwN9WM Tyler Durden
Watch: First-Ever Skydive From Solar Plane Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/28/2020 – 23:40
A Swiss pilot on Tuesday became the first person in the world to skydive from a solar-powered electric plane. The entire event was live-streamed for the world to see.
The solar-powered plane, developed by SolarStratos, an aeronautical startup developing a solar-powered airplane that can fly in the stratosphere, took off from an airfield in western Switzerland on Tuesday morning with two people on board.
Test pilot Miguel Iturmendi was piloting the plane, with SolarStratos’ founder Raphael Domjan as the passenger. Once the plane reached an altitude of 5,000 feet, Domjan opened the canopy of the plane and jumped out, landing safely on the ground minutes later.
“After a short climb and after reaching an altitude of 5,000 feet (1,520 meters), Raphaël Domjan threw himself into the void, freefalling several hundred meters and reaching a speed of more than 150 kilometers an hour [93 miles an hour] before landing in front of the team base and an array of guests,” communications manager Bernard Schopfer told Anadolu Agency.
The significance of the jump is that Domjan is the first person to free fall from an electric plane.
Domjan said, “We aim to demonstrate the potential of solar energy and electric mobility.”
“It is a message of hope for future generations: tomorrow, they will still be able to dream and carry out activities such as parachuting, for example, but without greenhouse gas emissions and in absolute silence,” he said.
SolarStratos’ electric plane is the first commercial two-seater solar plane to fly in the stratosphere.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QG7OYl Tyler Durden
US-Russian ‘Road War’ In Northeastern Syria Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/28/2020 – 23:20
Submitted by South Front,
Four US service members were slightly injured during a standoff with the Russian Military Police near the border-town of Al-Malikiyah in the Syrian province of al-Hasakah. According to reports, the US troops received “mild injures” after their MaxxPro MRAP vehicle collided with a Russian vehicle. US officials quoted by media said there was no exchange of fire during the standoff, which took place earlier this week. According to their version of the events, a Russian vehicle intentionally rammed a US one.
Videos from the scene appeared online on August 26. They show Russian and U.S. armored vehicles chasing each other in the al-Hasakah countryside. A Russian helicopter was also filmed harassing U.S. troops that were trying to block a Russian patrol. Syrian sources say that Russian forces were reacting to attempts of the US military to block a Russian patrol in the area.
A few hours later, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley made a phone call to Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov, the Pentagon said. The US military did not provide details regarding the agenda of the phone call, but it is likely that the sides discussed the current situation.
Forces of the United States and Russia regularly find themselves engaged in various small-scale incidents in the area as both sides seek to block movements of each other in the region. After the first deployment of the Russian Military Police in Syria’s northeast, forces of the US-led coalition immediately started trying to block the movement of Russian patrols near al-Hasakah. Later, the Russian Military Police and the Syrian Army, with support of pro-government locals, joined this standoff by regularly blocking US military convoys and forcing them to return to their bases. The recent developments demonstrate that these actions may easily lead to a further escalation at any moment.
A group of pro-government fighters went missing near the town of al-Mayadin in the province of Deir Ezzor during the recent security operation there, according to reports by pro-militant sources. The missing fighters are reportedly members of the local National Defense Forces (NDF) and the Palestinian militia Liwa al-Quds. The NDF and Liwa al-Quds dispatched a large force with dozens of vehicles to the western Deir Ezzor countryside to search for the missing group, whose fate is yet to be revealed. Most likely, it was ambushed and eliminated by ISIS terrorists. A wide network of ISIS cells still operates in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert. Russia says that these cells use the US-controlled areas in al-Tanf and on the eastern bank of the Euphrates to resupply its forces. The US rejects these claims as false.
The situation in southern Idlib remains relatively calm after the recent attack on the Russian-Turkish patrol. Nonetheless, the sides are apparently preparing for a new confrontation. On August 26, two service members of Syria’s 45th Special Forces Regiment were spotted with 9K32 Strela-2M and 9K310 Igla-1 MANPADs near the al-Zawiya Mount, close to positions of Turkish-backed militants. Apparently, these MANPADs will be employed against Turkish forces if Anakra once again opts to go offensive against the Syrian Army to protect al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in Greater Idlib.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hGuzav Tyler Durden
Remote-Working Americans Shell Out $30,000 For Tiny Home Offices Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/28/2020 – 23:00
As the COVID-19 pandemic struck fast and hard, years of changes are transforming the economy in a matter of quarters. For instance, the trend of remote work continues to erupt, allowing folks to work at home instead of corporate offices.
The next-generation work environment could be one’s back yard. People have been shelling out $30,000 for tiny home offices post-pandemic.
Yahoo Finance said Colorado-based Studio Shed is building tiny home offices for an average cost of $20,000 to $30,000. The sheds are commonly installed in the backyard of a home, allow white-collar folks to work from home but removed from the main house.
Studio Shed co-founder Mike Koenig said remote working during the pandemic has led to a massive increase in sales this year over the last, increasing 14-fold so far.
“Recently, we have seen a massive surge in the 80- to 120-square feet option, which is a perfect office size or home gym or kid’s study area,” Koenig said. “We were already seeing some very good growth having started in 2008 just seeing these shifts in the way people work and wanting to spend more time at home and maybe not commute, but starting in March, it’s just been growing significantly.”
He said, “as soon as March and April hit, we definitely saw that the Eastern part of the country grows, that market is up a couple of hundred percent over last year.”
Koenig said demand is coming from all over the country. If it’s East or West Coast, demand for tiny office sheds appears to be the next big trend in white-collar America as remote working trends continue to reshape everything we know about the economy.
Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris told a group of Jewish donors Wednesday that a Joe Biden White House would not place any conditions on military aid to Israel, and that a Biden-Harris administration would continue the “unprecedented” military and intelligence cooperation with the Jewish state the country received from the Obama administration.
Haartezreports the California Democrat’s comments came during a virtual campaign call with donors in which she assured attendees that “Joe has made it clear he will not tie security assistance to political decisions Israel makes,” adding that she “couldn’t agree more” with that policy.
“The Biden-Harris administration will sustain our unbreakable commitment to Israel’s security,” Harris reportedly said, “including the unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation pioneered during the Obama administration and guarantee that Israel will always maintain its qualitative military edge.”
AFP via Getty Images
The Trump administration frequently touts the $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel as proof of its commitment to Israel’s security. However, the record $38 billion, 10-year aid package was drafted and approved in 2016, during Obama’s tenure. The White House at the time called the grant a “reflection of President Obama’s unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”
The Obama administration was often criticized by international human rights advocates for its unconditional support for Israel, which had launched three devastating wars against Gaza in 2008, 2012, and 2014, in which thousands of civilians were killed. Israel also faced growing international condemnation for its ongoing illegal occupation and settler colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as what prominent international critics have called ethnic cleansing and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories.
During the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, there was an historic shift among candidates’ stances regarding Israel. For the first time, not only progressive candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), but also more moderate ones like former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg saidthey would consider attaching conditions to Israel aid.
One critic noted that the Biden-Harris stance falls “far to the right of” former President George H.W. Bush, who initially refused to approve a $10 billion loan to Israel over settlement expansion before ultimately backing down.
Unconditional military aid to Israel puts Biden/Harris far to the right of notorious peacenik
Harris has long been a supporter of Israel. In 2017, she met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu one day after he announced a plan to expel tens of thousands of African migrants, who he called“infiltrators” who threatened the country’s “Jewish character,” from Israel.
In Congress, progressive lawmakers including Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and moderates including Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have sought to block U.S. aid from funding Israel’s proposed annexation of large portions of the West Bank.
At the same time, however, even some progressive Democratic lawmakers—most notably Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—joined their Republican and moderate Democratic colleagues in supporting a bill that condemned the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian human rights.
Differences between the Obama and Trump administration on relations with Israel are often more stylistic than substantive. While right-wing politicians and pundits made much of some very public spats between Obama and Netanyahu, there was never any serious doubt that the U.S. would continue to staunchly support its closest Middle Eastern ally.
Today I met with Senator @KamalaHarris of California. We discussed the potential for deepening cooperation in water management, agriculture, cyber security, and more. I expressed my deep appreciation for America’s commitment to Israel’s security. 🇮🇱🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/L5qdcgwWG0
It is true that the Trump administration has been exceptionally accommodating toward Israel, notably by moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. However, the current administration has continued its predecessors’ largely uncritical support for Israel, no matter how many human rights violations it commits, and regardless of world opinion.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations stood nearly alone in the world in vetoing United Nations resolutions condemning Israel’s illegal colonization, although Obama did abstain from a vote on settlements shortly before leaving office.
Speaking of Iran, Harris told the Jewish donors that a Biden administration “will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon,” an apparently superfluous statement given that U.S. and Israel intelligence officials have said since the early 2000s that Tehran is not seeking to build or acquire such weapons. Biden has signaled that he is interested in renegotiating the nuclear deal, with which all parties, including the Trump administration, agreed Iran was compliant.
“We will work with our allies… to strengthen and extend the Iran deal and push back against Iran’s other destabilizing actions,” Harris told the donors on the Wednesday call, which came as Israel continued its near-daily air and artillery attacks on what it says are Hamas targets in Gaza in repsonse to incendiary balloon attacks that have sparked wildfires in southern Israel.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3b8rUUL Tyler Durden
