According to a news report, a Secret Service agent, assigned to protect President Trump, abandoned her post to breastfeed her infant.
Okay, enough with the jokes.
This is some kind of anti-feminist fabrication, or some falsehood designed to impugn DIE.
What next? Women are unreliable when they are menstruating? Was it a “take your child to work” day? Here, my baby, let us shield the president with our bodies. It’s Mommy’s job.
Oh, wait. It’s not a joke.
The report is real. Women in law enforcement, apparently, are allowed to take their infants into potential gunfights.
The Secret Service will, no doubt, claim that the woman acted against regulations. But at what point? When she showed up at the Trump rally in North Caroline with her baby? When she accepted the assignment? When she holstered her pistol, hopefully on the first attempt? Heck, she might even get a medal for dereliction of dedication to duty.
What about the Service itself? Is it normal policy to assign mothers of newborns to potentially violent, even deadly situations? Did it not occur to the supervisors when she returned from maternity leave that, hey, she now has a baby? What accommodations should be made? Should we take her pistol? Rifle? Should she be at a desk job? And above all, keep her away from gently sloping rooftops.
Or should we revisit the entire idea that women in certain jobs can be hired and assigned without any reference to their sex?
The Daily Wire reported that the violent rhetoric came during Biden’s first public appearance with Kamala Harris since he dropped out of the 2024 race. Harris became the Democratic Party’s nominee to face off against Donald Trump.
“Let me tell you what our Project 2025 is: beat the h*ll out of them,” Biden told the crowd during an event in Prince George’s County, Maryland.
After the far-left audience cheered for violence, Biden doubled down by saying, “I mean it!”
Conservatives on social media quickly criticized Biden and leftists who supported him.
“Disgusting!” the Trump War Room account wrote in a post while also noting that Biden’s remark came just a month after the attempted assassination against Trump at a campaign rally in Butler, Pa.
Biden instructs the audience to “beat the hell” out of Republicans — a month after the assassination attempt against President Trump. Disgusting! pic.twitter.com/MpxSGBsu4h
“Is this a call to violence?” asked the Libs of TikTok account on Twitter, which is operated by Chaya Raichik and has over 3.3 million followers.
Collin Rugg, who has an X account with 1.4 million followers, also responded to the violent rhetoric.
“If Trump said this, it would be wall-to-wall coverage on MSNBC for the next three weeks,” he wrote, adding that the Washington Post “would be putting the ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ banner up.”
If Trump said this, it would be wall-to-wall coverage on MSNBC for the next three weeks.
WaPo would be putting the ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ banner up.
In June, Trump faced Biden in a debate hosted by CNN, and just weeks after the disastrous Biden performance, the leftist establishment removed him as a presidential candidate and replaced him with Harris.
Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are expected to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago next week. Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., are expected to accept their nominations and deliver remarks.
Biden’s violent rhetoric was just another example of Democrats’ evil nature. It was also recently revealed that Nancy Pelosi issued death threats to pro-Trump Republicans as well.
In a 5-4 decision Friday, the Supreme Court refused the Biden regime’s emergency request to partially reinstate its expanded Title IX rules.
Title IX was originally enacted in 1972 to ensure equal educational and athletic opportunities for all students regardless of their sex and to protect the rights of girls and women.
Schools treat students who suffer, or claim to suffer, from gender dysphoria as though they were the opposite sex.
Male students who identify as female must be allowed access to facilities designated for females, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, and be allowed to participate in women’s sports and organizations.
Teachers and students must refer to a gender dysphoric child by their preferred pronouns and alternative name.
No formal documentation is required to affirm gender identity.
When a female student opposes having a male on a team or in an organization intended only for women or feels uncomfortable sharing a locker room with a male, the female in opposition may now incur not only social stigma but also the possibility of legal repercussions for her school, team, or organization.
The changes were set to go into effect nationwide on on Aug. 1, but Republican state attorneys general in roughly half the states filed suit to block their implementation.
The Biden regime argued that those injunctions went too far, and urged SCOTUS to block only the prohibitions on the gender ideology issues at the center of the challenges, so other changes could go into effect.
Those changes reportedly include accommodating pregnant students, retaliation protections, and recordkeeping requirements.
“On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the Government has not provided this Court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule,” the Supreme Court’s order stated.
The three left-wing justices and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed in their dissent that the Biden administration was correct in arguing the lower court rulings were “overbroad.”
“By blocking the Government from enforcing scores of regulations that respondents never challenged and that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries, the lower courts went beyond their authority to remedy the discrete harms alleged here,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote.
[ZH: Social media erupted in praise for SCOTUS’ decision]
The SCOTUS just overturned the Title IX rewrite allowing biological boys into girls sports. This is great news for girls and women’s sports all across the nation! https://t.co/t1WOGfDWea
Unlike Democrats, Republicans know what a woman is, and we know Title IX was written to protect the rights of women. Today, we applaud the Supreme Court keeping the lower courts’ injunction in place. For now, the Court has stopped the Biden-Harris Administration’s attempts to…
Mediocre men should NEVER steal opportunities from exceptional women. SCOTUS sided with the states and blocked the Biden-Harris unconstitutional rewrite of Title IX. That’s great news for young women everywhere! pic.twitter.com/lRxA5rqG0B
The collapse of the Biden-Harris Administration’s woke Title IX rewrite was foreseeable. Today’s Supreme Court decision is a huge win for our women and girls!
There are various other lawsuits challenging Biden regime’s radical Title IX changes and those cases are also expected eventually end up the Supreme Court, where a final order is still needed to vacate the rule nationwide.
Watch: Bloody Brawl In Turkey’s Parliament Left Lawmakers Injured, Even Women Were Punched
Turkey’s parliament descended into a rare, violent brawl on Friday – all caught on camera – and which literally resulted in blood on the ground and at least two lawmakers injured.
The fracas lasted for a stunning 30-minutes, and it all started during a speech from opposition leftist MP Ahmet Sik of the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TIP). Sik had been lambasting Erdogan’s ruling AK party and its lawmakers, defending a ‘controversial’ figure Can Atalay – who ran for a parliament seat from jail in 2023 and won after being sentenced to 18 years in prison in 2022 under Erdogan’s government.
Atalay was subsequently stripped of his mandate by AKP authorities, but the Workers’ Party of Turkey moved to reverse this ban from parliament and restore his elected mandate on Friday. This infuriated AKP politicians.
Things erupted in turmoil when MP Sik called AKP lawmakers “the biggest terrorists of this country.”
That’s when an enraged Alpay Ozalan of the AKP suddenly approached the podium and slapped and the opposition representative, who fell to the ground. From there all hell broke lose and at one point even women were being punched.
Politico detailed of the massive fight, which should prove a national embarrassment and certainly won’t do anything to help improve Turkey’s years-long efforts to join the European Union:
At that point, AKP member Alpay Özalan launched into Şık and shoved him to the ground. Other AKP lawmakers joined in to punch him while he was on the floor.
The attack quickly turned into a full-fledged brawl that lasted 30 minutes and led to the suspension of the hearing. When the session eventually resumed three hours later, MPs voted to uphold Atalay’s suspension.
The parliament also reprimanded Şık for his statements against the AKP and Özalan for the assault that kicked off the fight.
Watch how the fight started below:
A fistfight broke out in Turkey’s parliament when an opposition deputy was attacked after calling for his colleague, jailed on charges of organising anti-government protests but since elected an MP, to be admitted to the assembly | Read more: https://t.co/UTaDHtv2vGpic.twitter.com/9tzgfy6g3E
Leader of the main opposition party CHP Özgür Özel later issued a statement saying the whole spectacle was shamful.
“Lawmakers punched other lawmakers, even women. This is unacceptable,” he said according to Reuters. In the aftermath spots and streaks of blood had to be wiped off white marble steps in front of the speaker’s podium.
The jailed official at the center of the controversy, Atalay, is a “lawyer, rights activist and one of the Gezi Seven accused of trying to overthrow the government by orchestrating nationwide protests in 2013. He was sentenced to 18 years in jail in 2022,” Politico details.
A fistfight broke out in Turkey’s parliament when an opposition deputy was attacked after calling for his colleague, jailed on charges of organizing anti-government protests but since elected an MP, to be admitted to the assembly https://t.co/M4NyyclfD2pic.twitter.com/oCrNamNwCq
Brawls in Turkish parliament have been known to happen from time to time, but have become more rare. A much smaller scuffle happened in June, related to the jailing of a pro-Kurdish mayor. The Kurdish issue is especially a hot-button topic anytime it arises in Turkish parliament.
As I argued in October of 2022, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X) would represent an important test case for the freedom of speech on social media against the globalist, woke, and totalitarian agenda for the censorship of “hate speech,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation.” In that essay, I also predicted that one of the main obstacles for free speech on X would be the Digital Services Act (DSA) of the European Union (EU), as administered by the European Commission (EC):
But the Digital Services Act threatens to universalize content moderation by social media and search engines, subjecting them to the EU’s stringent and anti-free-speech laws against “disinformation” and “hate speech,” which are not (yet) recognized legal categories in the United States. Given that Twitter [now X] will be forced to abide by EU-enforced content moderation for its EU users, it is possible that it will simply apply the Digital Services Act’s rules to all content…
Sure enough, Musk’s X has been threatened with fines of up to 6% of global revenue by the EC’s Thierry Breton for failure to comply with the EC’s DSA. And now Breton is attempting to bring down the hammer on X for its failure to comply with DSA imperatives, especially in connection with a prospective interview of Trump and revolts underway in the UK over immigration and immigrant violence.
In an X post on August 12, 2024, Breton publicized a letter he sent to Musk and X’s CEO, Linda Yaccarino, the weakest link in X’s free-speech chain. The letter lays out the extent to which the EC aims to go and the powers that it arrogates to itself to curtail free speech:
Thus, we see that the imperative to control speech on all “Very Large Online Platforms,” including search engines and social media sites, is globalist in character. The EC has no intention of abiding by the constitutional provisions that supposedly protect the speech of individuals or platform owners in any sovereign nation states. No matter the origin of the speech in question, the EC claims the right to regulate it.
In prose rife with the kind of doublespeak and gaslighting that we should expect from the globalists in the EC, the United Nations (UN), and the World Economic Forum (WEF), Breton continues:
This notably means ensuring, on one hand, that freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism, are effectively protected and, on the other hand, that all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security. This is important against the background of recent examples of public unrest brought about by the amplification of content that promotes hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or certain instances of disinformation. (emphasis mine)
On the one hand, the EC’s Breton is ordering X to ensure “freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism,” and on the other, the platform must mitigate (censor) “the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events.”
Of course, the EC will decide what constitutes “harmful content,” and the harmfulness of said content will be determined based on the EU’s dicta as to what harms its own (globalist) agenda. Never mind whether the content may advocate the reduction or elimination of harm to those subjects it deems to have no right to freedom of expression, like the native Britons revolting against the UK’s immigration policies, aligned as the latter policies are with the EU’s own immigration policies. The EC will decide what speech it condones, what freedom of expression is allowed, and what expression will be disallowed. The EC will decide what are the “relevant events,” “public unrest,” and thus what speech is permissible and what is not.
Redoubling its claims to authority over speech on X, Breton reminded Musk of ongoing proceedings against the platform:
As you know, formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably in areas linked to the dissemination of illegal content and the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat disinformation. (emphasis mine)
This warning is given in connection of ongoing speech of which Breton and the EC/EU does not sanction, including speech exhibiting “hate and racism” and “debates and interviews in the context of elections,” the treatment of which could have, Breton warns, an impact on proceedings already underway against X:
As the relevant content is accessible to EU users and being amplified also in our jurisdiction, we cannot exclude potential spillovers in the EU. Therefore, we are monitoring the potential risks in the EU associated with the dissemination of content that may incite violence, hate and racism in conjunction with major political – or societal – events around the world, including debates and interviews in the context of elections.
Let me clarify that any negative effect of illegal content on X in the EU, which could be attributed to the ineffectiveness of the way in which X applies the relevant provisions of the DSA, may be relevant in the context of the ongoing proceedings and of the overall assessment of X’s compliance with EU law. This is in line with what has already been done in the recent past, for example in relation to the repercussions and amplification of terrorist content or content that incites violence, hate and racism in the EU, such as in the context of the recent riots in the United Kingdom.
l therefore urge you to promptly ensure the effectiveness of your systems and to report measures taken to my team. (emphasis mine)
Thus, the supposed “richest man in the world” is to report on his censorship mitigation efforts regarding permissible free expression to the Breton’s EU “team.”
Musk’s X is likewise vulnerable to punishment by this supra-statist regime.
The arrogance of the supra-statist, globalist, and woke regime apparently knows no bounds. As if in the U.S., national efforts to curtail and control speech were not already draconian enough, the EC/EU is upping the ante on censorship. These efforts will have dramatic effects on the future of free speech, including speech regarding pandemics, the integrity of elections, “antisemitism,” the institution of freedom-crushing “climate change” mitigation efforts, civil unrest in response to all the above, and more.
Kamala Harris’ Price Control Plan Would Cause A Widespread Supply-Chain Crisis
The Democrats have been instituting a propaganda campaign to hide or deny the effects of inflation ever since Joe Biden took office in 2021. At first, they claimed there was no inflation threat. Then they claimed inflation was “transitory.” When the CPI hit 40 year highs they were forced to admit that inflation was an issue, but refused to admit the true cause (helicopter money from the Federal Reserve to fund various stimulus programs the US cannot afford). Instead, Biden and Harris argued that the business world was to blame and high prices were a product of “price gouging.”
The establishment media has been running with this narrative for years even though it has been thoroughly debunked. Retail prices have risen in direct correlation to the increases in production costs. As prices in raw materials and manufacturing rise, the prices on the shelf rise. And, as too many dollars chase too few goods the manufacturing sector struggles to keep up with labor demands. More labor with higher wages and a strained supply mean, again, higher prices.
Using producers as a scapegoat for economic failure is a time-honored tradition of socialist governments that refuse to take responsibility for their own failures. It is also a way for politicians to pretend like they’re fixing the problem; temporarily treating the symptoms but never actually dealing with the source of the illness (because they are the source).
Here’s your “price gouging” narrative: average costs paid by businesses have risen just as much as costs charged to consumers – if businesses are being “greedy,” they’re doing it all wrong… pic.twitter.com/ALiw72MXSf
Rising costs were a top challenge for manufacturers in 2023 and this year looks to be no different. Inflation caused prices to spike not only for materials, but wages and energy and the problem is expected to persist well into 2025. Industry reports also suggest that declines in consumer demand have combined with inflation in prices, putting a strain on profits and the supply chain.
As demand falters and costs increase manufacturers have to reduce supply. As supply declines, either shelves will be empty or prices will climb even higher on the black market.
The Kamala Harris campaign recently released their economic policy plan to solve the ongoing stagflationary crisis, and it’s not surprising that Harris intends to continue the very same strategies that caused the problem in the first place. She intends to print even more money to create even more handouts in order to bribe low-information voters. Analysts are calling her plan an attempt to institute communist economic restrictions and upend what’s left of the free market. This is true, but what does this mean in terms of consequences?
Beyond causing the death of what’s left of the free market in the US, the bigger threat is the immediate damage that price controls will cause to the supply chain. With already thin profit margins for manufacturers and rising labor costs there is little room to maneuver. Price controls would put a low ceiling on revenues and without profit incentives, there is no reason for companies to continue producing. They will slow production of goods or shut down completely until better market conditions return.
It’s interesting to note that both the World Bank and even the Federal Reserve have recently warned about the dangers of price controls – Those guys are corrupt, but they aren’t crazy like Kamala. The last time the US instituted price controls was during the early-1970s during the onset of the last stagflation crisis. This was after the Nixon-era removal of the Dollar from the gold standard. It was an unmitigated disaster.
On Aug. 15, 1971, in a nationally televised address, Nixon announced, “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.” After a 90-day freeze, increases would have to be approved by a “Pay Board” and a “Price Commission,” with an eye toward eventually lifting controls. This move was initially popular and helped win Nixon a second term in office.
However, by 1973 and the advent of the OPEC Oil Embargo it had become clear that price controls did not work. As the New York Times noted in June of 1973:
“Housewives searching their supermarket shelves this coming week will find most of what they want still there. But widening circle of food processors and retailers are caught in a profit squeeze resulting from the price freeze, and this is beginning to curtail production of some foods…It could lead to shortages of many items in the next month.
Every echelon of the food industry, from farmers to retailers are criticizing the ceilings imposed on meat in March and on all other items on June 13. Their unhappiness about the ceiling has contributed to recent warnings of shortages.”
In June 1973, Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw explain in The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy:
“Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets…”
The government is in no position to police prices. These controls will only cause more damage in the long run and Kamala Harris and her team of Biden advisors are not intelligent enough to deal with the problem anyway.
“Let me put it plainly–two years of war are weighing heavily on nuclear safety at Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant,” said Rafael Mariana Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
“…Reckless attacks must cease immediately.”
Zaporizhzhia is a small town at the edge of Russian-occupied territory in Ukraine, home to Europe’s largest nuclear plant of the same name. The plant once employed 11,000 workers and provided power to seven countries, but since coming under Russian control, five of its six reactors have remained in cold shutdown. Only one remains partly operational, supplying power to the plant and nearby town.
Many locals and Ukrainian plant workers allege abuse, unsafe working conditions, and even torture by Russian authorities, all of which has caused mounting stress and suffering while leaving the plant vulnerable to human error.
“Now they take people directly from the nuclear plant, say that someone betrayed them, and throw them into basements,”said Dmytro Orlov, mayor of nearby Enerhodar, who finally fled the city. He claimed Russian overseers forced locals to work without pay, food, or sleep.
“It’s simply unimaginable,” Orlov added.
Throughout the war, both sides have used the plant as leverage, citing the risks local attacks pose to the security of nuclear materials inside the plant. The plant drew widespread international attention after a series of kamikaze drone strikes in April, which evoked fears of a Chernobyl-esque disaster that could spread far beyond Ukrainian borders.
“We cannot sit by and watch as the final weight tips the finely balanced scale,” the IAEA’s Grossi warned.
Concerns of a nuclear disaster are back in the spotlight this week, as Russia and Ukraine spat over which side caused a fire that sent black smoke and flames curling from a cooling tower.
“We are waiting for the reaction of the world, we are waiting for the reaction of the IAEA,” Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky announced in a video post.
“Russia must be held responsible for this.”
Russian representatives denied involvement in the fire and turned the accusations back on Ukraine, claiming the conflagration was caused by Ukrainian attacks on a nearby city and that it was an act of “nuclear terror.”
Damage to the tower from this latest attack reportedly poses no radiation hazard to the plant or to the surrounding region, though IAEA officials have requested entry to the premises to inspect the wreckage and ensure safety from any possible fallout.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is back on the offensive, carrying the war that has been fought almost entirely on Ukrainian soil straight to their enemy’s front door. Russian President Vladimir Putin has vowed to “kick the enemy out” of its new position in Russian territory, sparking fears of a dramatic retaliation.
“What kind of negotiations can we even talk about with people who indiscriminately strike at civilians, at civilian infrastructure, or try to create threats to nuclear power facilities?” Putin complained following the Ukrainian incursion.
“What can we even talk about with them?”
The situation between the two countries and their allies remains highly volatile, posing safety and economic hazards that could echo across the globe.
This won’t be the first time Russia has used energy shutoffs to force capitulation–just ask the Europeans who suffered and died during the 2023 heat wave, which was exacerbated by Russian-backed energy shortages–but it’s one of the first times in recent memory that nuclear material has been directly in the strategic crosshairs.
Best-case scenario: Prices will continue to rise in the wake of a cold war waged via sanctions, embargoes, and harmful economic policies.
Worst-case scenario: More countries are forced to enter the war.
These Were The Largest Sovereign Debt Defaults In Modern History
In July, Ukraine avoided defaulting on $20 billion in loans by reaching a preliminary agreement with private creditors.
Given the financial burden of war, the country suspended interest payments on international debt over the last two years, which was set to expire on August 1, 2024.
Without this new debt restructuring, this default would have ranked among the 10 largest in recent history. The last time Ukraine defaulted on its debt was in 2015, after Russia’s invasion of Crimea.
Below, we show the biggest sovereign debt defaults between 1983 and 2022:
Greece’s $264.2 billion default in 2012 stands as the largest overall, unfolding when the country was mired in recession for the fifth consecutive year.
The country defaulted again just nine months later, making it the fourth-largest ever. Leading up to the crash, Greece ran significant deficits despite being one of the fastest-growing countries in Europe. Furthermore, in 2009, the newly elected prime minister revealed that the country was $410 billion in debt—substantially more than previous estimates.
With the second-highest default recorded, Argentina failed to repay interest on $82.3 billion in foreign debt in 2001. Like Greece, it is a repeat offender, defaulting numerous times since independence in 1816. Today, Argentina is the largest debtor to the International Monetary Fund, despite being Latin America’s third-largest economy.
Following next in line is Russia’s 1998 default on $72.7 billion in loans, coinciding with a currency crisis that erased more than two-thirds of the ruble’s value in a matter of weeks. That year, several other countries including Venezuela, Pakistan, and Ukraine defaulted on their debts after the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997 spurred instability in global financial markets.
Just as 1998 saw a wave of defaults, 2020 was a year marked by major debt upheavals. Due to the pandemic and collapsing oil prices, it was a record year for sovereign defaults, reaching seven in total. Among these, Lebanon, Ecuador, and Argentina saw the largest defaults amid deepening fiscal pressures.
Geologists may have solved the mystery of the origin of the Altar Stone central to the ancient monument of Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, England.
The Altar Stone was long believed to have traveled 150 miles from Preseli Hills in Southwest Wales with the other megaliths until later work discounted that theory.
According to new research published in the scientific journal Nature, the 6-ton Altar Stone may have taken a longer journey of 600 miles from Northern Scotland.
“The difficulty of long-distance overland transport of such massive cargo from Scotland, navigating topographic barriers, suggests that it was transported by sea,” the study said. “Such routing demonstrates a high level of societal organization with intra-Britain transport during the Neolithic period.”
According to the study, ancient Britons began construction of Stonehenge as early as 3000 B.C. and continued for two millennia.
Stonehenge was constructed with sarsen stones and bluestones—or rock “considered exotic to the local area,” the study said.
The Altar Stone, the study said, is the largest of the bluestones in the ancient monument.
Stonehenge’s Origin
Nick Howe, host of Nature’s “Nature Podcast,” said the Altar Stone has long perplexed geologists.
“Despite its name, it’s unclear whether it was actually used as an altar,” he said. “And while it now lies flat, with another stone fallen on top of it, it may have once stood upright.”
Because it’s the largest of the stones and central to the structure, researchers have acknowledged its importance, Mr. Howe said.
Ten thousand years ago, he said, Stonehenge was marked not with stones but with wooden posts, which suggested that the site had significance for the ancient Britons.
“Then, around 6,000 years ago, a round ditch was constructed, the first signs of the familiar circular structure,” he said. “It’s around this time that it’s thought that a set of stones, known as the bluestones, arrived at Stonehenge from the Preseli Hills in Wales, a journey of some 150 miles.”
Hundreds of years later, the over 20-foot sarsen stones were transported to the site and raised to create what is known as Stonehenge today.
“It’s thought that these massive slabs came from quite close by, maybe only 15 miles away,” Mr. Howe said.
Despite competing theories suggesting the Altar Stone arrived with either the sarsen or the bluestones, researchers have never reached a definitive conclusion, Mr. Howe said.
“Last year a detailed analysis ruled out a Welsh origin for the Altar Stone, so, until now, its origin has remained a mystery,” Mr. Howe said.
‘Unique Fingerprint’
The study’s co-author, geologist Richard Bevins at Aberystwyth University in Aberystwyth, Wales, wasn’t allowed to use samples from the Altar Stone because it’s a protected site.
Instead, he used a sample from the rock in the 19th century and sent it to Anthony Clarke, a PhD student at Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia, where he had the technology to analyze the sample “grain-by-grain.”
“From that chemistry, we could look up the ages and compare them with other source regions in the UK,” he said.
Using this analysis, he then set about finding a match for the source of the Altar Stone.
Though it’s a small island, Britain has a complicated geology, Mr. Clarke said.
Mr. Clarke was able to determine the “unique fingerprint” of the Altar Stone and compare it with other sedimentary basins, eventually finding a match in the Arcadian Basin of Northeast Scotland.
Mr. Clarke told Mr. Howe that he intends to conduct further research to find the exact location of Northeast Scotland where the Altar Stone was taken, information which may help illustrate a relationship between the two distant regions.
“One thing is for sure, though,” Mr. Howe said. “This won’t be the end of the mysteries that Stonehenge holds.”
In the wake of the Southport attack and ensuing riots, we wrote that the agenda had become clear – it was about attacking free speech.
Little did we suspect how quickly they would move, and how brazenly authoritarian they would become, culminating in quite literal show trials for facebook posts:
All while the so-called “liberals” are applauding and spouting phrases they don’t realise they’ve been hypnotised into believing through endless repetition.
“Tolerating intolerance just leads to more intolerance in the end.”
“Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences”
“It was never an absolute right”
If it wasn’t obvious from the outset, it’s quite clear now that this entire situation has been a contrivance.
As it turns out it was a masterfully played hand that has perfectly set up the template for other governments who may want to crackdown on free expression in the future.
Violent Incident– A terrorist attack, bomb threat, violent murder or some such hits the headlines. The incident can be real or staged, it makes no difference.
Push “Misinformation”– Publish an intentionally falsifiable narrative of the above via anonymous accounts or non-mainstream sources, and use bots and shills to spread this “fake news”.
Foment violence– Again using sock puppets and your bought-and-paid-for “alternative voices”, encourage disorder. Use undercover agents on the ground to direct and gradually inflame this situation until it becomes violent.
Debunk “Misinformation”– Release the “real story” of the inciting incident, contradicting the initial “misinformation” you deliberately seeded (see #2).
Blame Social Media– Through your controlled media, broadcast the idea that social media “amplified” the original “misinformation” (that you planted) and it is therefore to blame for the violence.
Arrests– Begin arresting people for online comments (again, these can be real or fake, it makes no difference), but ensure the comments are unpleasant or stupid enough most people won’t defend them.
Show trials and sentencing– Sentence people to prison for posting jokes and opinions on social media. Whether this is performed or actual, the desired effect will be the same.
Enjoy your precedent – Bathe in the adoration of people who should know better, enjoy your precedent and be ready to re-use it whenever you want.
That’s the base plan.
You can tweak it to add specifics to suit your agenda, for example, today in the UK they are trying rehabilitate the reputation of the police, attempting to rebrand them as “those brave boys who faced down the far-right”, rather then “those tools of the state who locked us down for no reason”.
But the great thing about this template is it can be adapted for any situation, all you need to do is plan the attack and riots accordingly.
Right now the UK has a new “Labour” government, eager to prove its “leftist” bona fides, so the stoked unrest was anti-immigration protests, allowing for a clamp down on the “far-right”.
Next time, in the US, maybe a cop allegedly shoots a black suspect who is reportedly unarmed, sparking BLM riots – but oh no, it turns out the cop was black too and the suspect WAS armed, “leaked” CCTV proves it.
Cue arrests of “far-left” BLM supporters calling for attacks on police or tweeting “All Cops Are Bastards” or anyone who spread the “misinformation” that the suspect was unarmed.
