iftttwall

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

After studying and exposing the agendas of establishment elites for the past 14 years, I can say with some authority that by watching these people you quickly begin to understand the reality of evil. Anyone who dismisses the concept of evil as nothing more than a “social construct” or a matter of “perception” is suffering from either naivety or bias.

They have either been lucky enough to have avoided a run-in with the resident psychopaths in their town, or, they have certain secret tendencies they will not reveal.  One thing that I have found most disturbing is the habit of evil people to quickly come to the defense of other evil people they don’t even know.  That is to say, I was initially shocked to discover the extreme level of fraternity predatory people feel and display when other predatory people are being exposed.  It is as if they are an unspoken brotherhood, and they don’t like it when their kinsmen are being punished for their crimes.

Yes, there are such things as ignorance, greed, jealousy, unhealthy desire, etc., and all of these frailties can lead to evil deeds. That said, in the majority of cases you will find that MOST people feel guilt, regret, empathy and remorse that prevent them from following through with their basest instincts. This is what we commonly call “conscience”, and a greater number of people have it. Without it, our species would have self-destructed and gone extinct thousands of years ago.

With psychopaths, however, it’s not only about a complete lack of empathy and conscience; they also often take JOY in the destruction, debasement and exploitation of others. Standard sociopaths harm people in the process of getting what they want because they do not have the capacity to care. Psychopaths harm people because THAT IS THEIR GOAL. Think of it as a kind of kink; they lust after control over others, they get high from it. And, their most sought after drug of choice is the violation of innocence.

In my lifetime I have met epic liars, con-men, rapists, murderers and even pedophiles, and their habits and mannerisms all tend to be the same. With every encounter you receive a crash course in evil and begin to learn how to identify them by their character ticks and broken thought processes. It gets to the point where they actually become boring and predictable.

While Hollywood loves to romanticize psychopaths as eternally interesting, in real life they are more like robots or mindless machines. Most of them are good at what they do, which is to be predatory or parasitic, but it’s their ONLY skill set – It’s the only thing that defines them. Otherwise, they have no capacity for imagination or creativity and all of their thoughts and ideas are stolen from others and recycled. In fact, you will find that if you are near a psychopath for an extended length of time, he/she will start to talk and act just like you.  This is what they do; they seek to blend in.

Some people have a hard time grasping the nature of psychopathy and evil because they have lived sheltered lives and remain blissfully unaware of the danger.

It is certainly possible to bumble through life without encountering such aberrant individuals. Full blown psychopaths (also known as narcissistic sociopaths) are rare in the grand scheme of human society. They represent around 1% of the population statistically, with narcissists and people with sociopathic tendencies representing around 5% of the overall public. And it’s a good thing, because a stunning majority of violent crimes tend to be committed by pyschopathic people. They are, by far, the primary drain on criminal justice resources and the biggest threat to social stability and safety.

If someone really wanted to change humanity for the better they could NOT do it without first removing psychopaths from the equation. This means, most importantly, removing them from positions of power and cultural influence. The problem is, there is no way to accurately and easily test for psychopathic traits preemptively.  Extensive psychological observation in a controlled environment is required.

Standard psychological tests can be fooled, and brain-scan tests are highly suspect (there are people who have tried to make a career out of the pyschopath brain-scan game but there is still no proof that the tests do anything to preemptively identify such traits). Ultimately, psychopaths have to be judged on their actions and behavior over time by someone who is very familiar with their universal personality traits.

That said, once these people identify themselves through action something has to be done about them. If they are allowed to continue without resistance they will follow their path to its natural conclusion, which means terror and carnage for anyone they come in contact with.

In order to protect themselves and their activities, psychopaths do indeed organize together. It has happened over and over again through history and the more intelligent or cunning members usually group together within the upper echelons of society by infiltrating institutions of power. Again, the concept of the “lone psychopath” is a Hollywood creation that does not represent real life. As long as there is mutual gain to be had and there are plenty of victims to go around, psychopaths can easily unify.

Hollywood has proven itself over the years to be a haven for evil people. Not so much in terms of the celebrities (though many of them are narcissistic and sociopathic), but more in terms of the people that control the industry. The entire edifice was designed as a haven for subhuman tendencies. They have celebrated this openly in the past, though these days they pretend as if they are cleaning house.

The machine of Hollywood is a vampire’s trap, a shining beacon luring in talented (or at least hopeful and starstruck) people, draining them of all life and then spitting them out once the feeding has finished. This is particularly true of children, and the number of cases of child abuse in the industry is staggering.  If it were any other business, the media would be up in arms in terms of the number of convictions and allegations.  If the fast food industry had as many pedo charges as Hollywood, the MSM would be writing thousands of articles a year admonishing the burger barn molestation epidemic.  But when it comes to Hollywood, mainstream journalists rabidly defend the people at the top and attack critics as “conspiracy theorists”.

The propensity for psychopaths to value children as their most sought after targets is well known. It’s not necessarily always sexual, sometimes it’s only physical or mental abuse. But, children are a delicacy to them none-the-less. What could be more enthralling to evil than to destroy the life of a purely innocent person and take their childhood away?

It is only in recent years that pedophilia in Hollywood has been taken more seriously by the general public. The Hollywood elites that dominate high level corporate positions have been the purveyors and controllers of America’s cultural expression for almost a century, and yet they are rarely subject to scrutiny. It is their own actions that have created the recent groundswell movement to root out organized child abuse.

Psychopaths are driven by crooked and twisted desires, but they are also driven by a desperate need to “prove” that the rest of society is as evil or as disturbed as they are if given the right “push”. This is one of their greatest weaknesses, because it causes them to make mistakes and expose their true natures.

Enter the Netflix film ‘Cuties’…

I have now watched portions of this film, including dramatic story scenes to get a fair sense of the total content as well as come clips of the notorious scenes that have enraged the public. And, I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT, this film is in fact child pornagraphy according to the Department of Justice’s legal definition.  A warning – I do NOT recommend watching this movie yourself, but if you do, be warned that the content is highly upsetting.

If you heard from the mainstream media that the reaction to this film was “overblown” and part of a “right wing conspiracy”; then I’m here to tell you that you were lied to. While I continue to hold to my position that Qanon is a joke and a psyop that has been wrong about almost every single prediction they have made, you don’t have to be a part of the Q-cult to see the attempt to normalize pedophilia at the foundation of Cuties.

Arguments made by the predominantly social justice media have exposed where they really stand on the issue of evil, and they are all for it!  Once again, the hard political left exposes its true nature when it comes to the defense of terrible content.  There have been hints of this in previous campaigns by the media, such as left-wing outlet Salon and an article they published in defense of pedophilia written by a self-professed pedophile.  Their argument?  That pedophilia should be treated with more empathy as long as pedophiles do not act on their impulses.  Salon later took down the article, but other media outlets argued that they should have left it published.

Initially, the criticism of the Cuties movie trailer was met with jeers from media pundits, the only people who had yet seen the film in its entirety. They claimed that critics had no idea what they were talking about and that the trailer did not convey the true message of the film, which is supposedly that sexual exploitation of children is “bad”. Yet, when the film was released it became clear this was a lie.

You can wrap child porn in as many declarations of “art” and “discourse” as you like, but at the end of the day it’s still child porn. The fact that it was directed by a woman from western Africa that migrated to France is irrelevant. African women migrants can be pedophiles and psychopaths, too. And yes, anyone that would expose 11 year old girls to this kind of filmmaking is indeed a psychopath.

The cinematography methods and camera angles are what give it away, and anyone that has studied film understands how this works. Sexualized film subjects tend to lend themselves to a certain form of cinematography which is designed to glamorize and entice.

For example, watch the film ‘Dancing At The Blue Iguana’ (a disturbing movie which I actually like), a movie about the sordid lives of strippers trying to survive in Los Angeles. Take note of the camera work in that movie, and then, if you can stomach it, compare it to the dance scenes in Cuties. The camera work is THE SAME, hovering over certain body parts voyeuristically. The difference is that ‘Dancing At The Blue Iguana’ stars ADULT WOMEN, not 11 year old girls.

Cuties is often defended by the media as being a Sundance “award winning” film; meaning, if the art-house elites sign off on it, it is therefore socially and morally acceptable material. It’s just “too smart” for the plebeians to grasp, right? Well, I am a long-time film buff myself and I know when I am looking at “art” and when I am looking at exploitation, and Cuties is clear-cut exploitation.

It should also be noted that the co-founder of the Sundance Film Festival plead guilty to child sex abuse charges only a year ago. So, maybe having the Sundance award emblem on a film is not a free pass for pedophilia.

Of course, the movie Cuties is not the first time Hollywood has tried to normalize the sexualization of children. In 1932 and 1933, right at the onset of the Great Depression, producer Jack Hays and director Charles Lamont released a series of at least eight films which would be dubbed “Baby Burlesque”. The films featured extremely young actors and actresses, including Shirley Temple before she was a box office juggernaught, acting out adult stories and scenes, dressed in adult costumes.  The movies contained pervasive sexual overtones, and if you are familiar with the ways Temple was viciously abused by Hollywood producers during her time as an actress the films have an added darkness to them.

The formula for Baby Burlesque movies was to portray young actors in adult situations and then label it “parody”.  This included a young Temple playing a hooker dressed in revealing “street clothing” and discussing how much she costs.  Temple’s later films would portray a young child, often an orphan, adopted by or spending the entire film with a rich benefactor. Parents usually do not make an appearance in the films or are killed in some tragic way, leaving the child alone and vulnerable. The dances and even songs in the movies are semi-erotic, especially for the era. The relationships between the children and the adult benefactors is bizarre, and is usually portrayed as an almost romantic interaction instead of a normal adult/child caretaker interaction.

Hollywood has been doing this for a LONG time.  Cuties is nothing more than a modernized version of Baby Burlesque.

To be clear, Netflix did not make the film, they only bankrolled the distribution of it.  That said, their promotional trailer for the movie directly showcased the sexual elements and not much else, which indicates to me what they REALLY cared about, and it wasn’t the story.  Once the movie was released to the public it became obvious that the trailers for the film didn’t even scratch the surface of the actual pedophilic content.

The casting for the film took 6 months to complete and over 700 girls were “auditioned” for the starring roles.  Director Maïmouna Doucouré continues to defend the film, calling it a “feminist” project.  This is not surprising; the unhinged and mentally disturbed nature of the social justice movement lends itself to all kinds of disorders.  The biggest problem is their infatuation with moral relativism and their ability to rationalize any number of crimes in the name of “diversity” or “equality” or “intersectionality”.  These are hollow buzzwords made up by hollow people; they don’t excuse bad behavior.

As with Baby Burlesque, child pornography is often masked as something else.  In the case of Cuties, child exploitation is masked as a loose commentary on child exploitation.  Is it blind irony?  No, not really.  Rather, in my opinion, it was planned.

I do find it interesting that the pedophile networks in Hollywood seem to choose the most unstable moments in history as a springboard for introducing child sexualization into the public consciousness.  They flooded the entertainment market with Baby Burlesque films right at the beginning of the Great Depression.  Now they are pushing the envelope even further during a pandemic, riots and economic crisis today.  My theory?  They see the widespread weakness and uncertainty in our society and view it as an opportunity to fundamentally change our moral boundaries.  The elites really want us to look at films like Cuties and say “Gee, this pedophilia thing isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be…and maybe it’s not wrong to be aroused by 11 year old children…”  Some people are in fact saying this on YouTube right now as they come to the defense of the film.

Bottom line:  If you are aroused by 11 year old children then you are psychologically defective and should be separated from the rest of society for the good of all.  There are certain behaviors that cannot and should not ever be adopted by society as tolerable.  This is one of them.

If there is anything positive to be had from the elitist establishment’s obsession with getting us to accept child abuse as “normal”, it is that they continue to expose the demons that they are. Luckily, it seems America and much of the world has rejected Cuties outright, and any interest in the film seems to be due to morbid curiosity about how such a disaster could have been produced and distributed.  Hollywood is NEVER going to convince the public that child abuse is okay, but they will continue to try until we put them out of business.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

The U.S. Air Force deployed “robot dogs” during an exercise in early September at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada to scout for threats before soldiers exited an aircraft. 

The Ghost Robotics Vision 60 robot, a four-legged autonomous unmanned ground vehicle, with similar characteristics to Boston Dynamics’ spot robotic dog, was tested under the Advanced Battle Management System, an Air Force project designed to provide commanders with the ability to control smart military assets in real-time.  

The robots were deployed from an Air Force LC-130 Hercules cargo plane that flew from Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado to Nellis, carrying airmen and the robot dogs. Once the plane landed, the robo-hounds were released to conduct inspection, surveillance, and or mapping missions of the base perimeter. The robot dogs also patrolled the perimeter of the base once the airman stabilized the area during the war exercise. 

“Our defenders employed the robot dogs,” said Master Sgt. Lee Boston, 321st CRS loadmaster and the C.R. team chief for the exercise. “These robot dogs are a new technology that we’re testing as part of the exercise. The dogs give us visuals of the area, all while keeping our defenders closer to the aircraft.”

Details are scant on Ghost Robotics’ website about Vision 60, but calls the robot “unstoppable” and says it is “highly-agile and fast,” along with “autonomous” features. Also, the dogs cannot be killed and can stealthily patrol wider areas than real dogs due to the use of optical sensors and artificial intelligence. 

The company also mentions a wide range of U.S. and allied military, homeland, intel, and public safety agencies are customers that are using these robots. 

So despite dystopian warnings about robot killer dogs, such as scenes featured in Black Mirror, the military’s Vision 60 is helping soldiers stay alive … but maybe that’s the case right up to the point Skynet turns on us all. 

… Robot dogs were also spotted in Singapore earlier this year, enforcing social distancing. 

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”

– George Orwell, 1984

Once upon a time in America, parents breathed a sigh of relief when their kids went back to school after a summer’s hiatus, content in the knowledge that for a good portion of the day, their kids would be gainfully occupied, out of harm’s way, and out of trouble.

Back then, if you talked back to a teacher, or played a prank on a classmate, or just failed to do your homework, you might find yourself in detention or doing an extra writing assignment after school or suffering through a parent-teacher conference about your shortcomings.

Of course, that was before school shootings became a part of our national lexicon.

As a result, over the course of the past 30 years, the need to keep the schools “safe” from drugs and weapons has become a thinly disguised, profit-driven campaign to transform them into quasi-prisons, complete with surveillance cameras, metal detectors, police patrols, zero tolerance policies, lock downs, drug sniffing dogs, school resource officers, strip searches, and active shooter drills.

Suddenly, under school zero tolerance policies, students were being punished with suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for childish behavior and minor transgressions such as playing cops and robbers on the playground, bringing LEGOs to school, or having a food fight.

Things got even worse once schools started to rely on police (school resource officers) to “deal with minor rule breaking: sagging pants, disrespectful comments, brief physical skirmishes.”

As a result, students are being subjected to police tactics such as handcuffs, leg shackles, tasers and excessive force for “acting up,” in addition to being ticketed, fined and sent to court for behavior perceived as defiant, disruptive or disorderly such as spraying perfume and writing on a desk.

This is what constitutes a police state education these days: lessons in compliance meted out with aggressive, totalitarian tactics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added yet another troubling layer to the ways in which students (and their families) can run afoul of a police state education now that school (virtual or in-person) is back in session.

Significant numbers of schools within the nation’s 13,000 school districts have opted to hold their classes online, in-person or a hybrid of the two, fearing further outbreaks of the virus. Yet this unprecedented foray into the virtual world carries its own unique risks.

Apart from the technological logistics of ensuring that millions of students across the country have adequate computer and internet access, consider the Fourth Amendment ramifications of having students attend school online via video classes from the privacy of their homes.

Suddenly, you’ve got government officials (in this case, teachers or anyone at the school on the other end of that virtual connection) being allowed carte blanche visual access to the inside of one’s private home without a warrant.

Anything those school officials see—anything they hear—anything they photograph or record—during that virtual visit becomes fair game for scrutiny and investigation not just by school officials but by every interconnected government agency to which that information can be relayed: the police, social services, animal control, the Department of Homeland Security, you name it.

After all, this is the age of overcriminalization, when the federal criminal code is so vast that the average American unknowingly commits about three federal felonies per day, a U.S. Attorney can find a way to charge just about anyone with violating federal law.

It’s a train wreck just waiting to happen.

In fact, we’re already seeing this play out across the country. For instance, a 12-year-old Colorado boy was suspended for flashing a toy gun across his computer screen during an online art class. Without bothering to notify or consult with the boy’s parents, police carried out a welfare check on Isaiah Elliott, who suffers from ADHD and learning disabilities.

An 11-year-old Maryland boy had police descend on his home in search of weapons after school officials spied a BB gun on the boy’s bedroom wall during a Google Meet class on his laptop. School officials reported the sighting to the school resource officer, who then called the police.

And in New York and Massachusetts, growing numbers of parents are being visited by social services after being reported to the state child neglect and abuse hotline, all because their kids failed to sign in for some of their online classes. Charges of neglect, in some instances, can lead to children being removed from their homes.

You see what this is, don’t you?

This is how a seemingly well-meaning program (virtual classrooms) becomes another means by which the government can intrude into our private lives, further normalizing the idea of constant surveillance and desensitizing us to the dangers of an existence in which we are never safe from the all-seeing eyes of Big Brother.

This is how the police sidestep the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause and a court-issued warrant in order to spy us on in the privacy of our homes: by putting school officials in a position to serve as spies and snitches via online portals and virtual classrooms, and by establishing open virtual doorways into our homes through which the police can enter uninvited and poke around.

Welfare checks. Police searches for weapons. Reports to Social Services.

It’s only a matter of time before the self-righteous Nanny State uses this COVID-19 pandemic as yet another means by which it can dictate every aspect of our lives.

At the moment, it’s America’s young people who are the guinea pigs for the police state’s experiment in virtual authoritarianism. Already, school administrators are wrestling with how to handle student discipline for in-person classes and online learning in the midst of COVID-19.

Mark my words, this will take school zero tolerance policies—and their associated harsh disciplinary penalties—to a whole new level once you have teachers empowered to act as the Thought Police.

As Kalyn Belsha reports for Chalkbeat, “In Jacksonville, Florida, students who don’t wear a mask repeatedly could be removed from school and made to learn online. In some Texas districts, intentionally coughing on someone can be classified as assault. In Memphis, minor misbehaviors could land students in an online ‘supervised study.’”

Depending on the state and the school district, failing to wear a face mask could constitute a dress code violation. In Utah, not wearing a face mask at school constitutes a criminal misdemeanor. In Texas, it’s considered an assault to intentionally spit, sneeze, or cough on someone else. Anyone removing their mask before spitting or coughing could be given a suspension from school.

Virtual learning presents its own challenges with educators warning dire consequences for students who violate school standards for dress code and work spaces, even while “learning” at home. According to Chalkbeat, “In Shelby County, Tennessee, which includes Memphis, that means no pajamas, hats, or hoods on screen, and students’ shirts must have sleeves. (The district is providing ‘flexibility’ on clothing bottoms and footwear when a student’s full body won’t be seen on video.) Other rules might be even tougher to follow: The district is also requiring students’ work stations to be clear of ‘foreign objects’ and says students shouldn’t eat or drink during virtual classes.”

See how quickly the Nanny State a.k.a. Police State takes over?

All it takes for you to cease being the master of your own home is to have a child engaged in virtual learning. Suddenly, the government gets to have a say in how you order your space and when those in your home can eat and drink and what clothes they wear.

If you think the schools won’t overreact in a virtual forum, you should think again.

These are the same schools that have been plagued by a lack of common sense when it comes to enforcing zero tolerance policies for weapons, violence and drugs.

These are the very same schools that have exposed students to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

Zero tolerance policies that were intended to make schools safer by discouraging the use of actual drugs and weapons by students have turned students into suspects to be treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, while criminalizing childish behavior.

For instance, 9-year-old Patrick Timoney was sent to the principal’s office and threatened with suspension after school officials discovered that one of his LEGOs was holding a 2-inch toy gun. David Morales, an 8-year-old Rhode Island student, ran afoul of his school’s zero tolerance policies after he wore a hat to school decorated with an American flag and tiny plastic Army figures in honor of American troops. School officials declared the hat out of bounds because the toy soldiers were carrying miniature guns.

A high school sophomore was suspended for violating the school’s no-cell-phone policy after he took a call from his father, a master sergeant in the U.S. Army who was serving in Iraq at the time. In Houston, an 8th grader was suspended for wearing rosary beads to school in memory of her grandmother (the school has a zero tolerance policy against the rosary, which the school insists can be interpreted as a sign of gang involvement).

Even imaginary weapons (hand-drawn pictures of guns, pencils twirled in a “threatening” manner, imaginary bows and arrows, even fingers positioned like guns) can also land a student in detention. Equally outrageous was the case in New Jersey where several kindergartners were suspended from school for three days for playing a make-believe game of “cops and robbers” during recess and using their fingers as guns.

With the distinctions between student offenses erased, and all offenses expellable, we now find ourselves in the midst of what Time magazine described as a “national crackdown on Alka-Seltzer.” Students have actually been suspended from school for possession of the fizzy tablets in violation of zero tolerance drug policies. Students have also been penalized for such inane “crimes” as bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades.

A 13-year-old boy in Manassas, Virginia, who accepted a Certs breath mint from a classmate, was actually suspended and required to attend drug-awareness classes, while a 12-year-old boy who said he brought powdered sugar to school for a science project was charged with a felony for possessing a look-alike drug.

Acts of kindness, concern, basic manners or just engaging in childish behavior can also result in suspensions.

One 13-year-old was given detention for exposing the school to “liability” by sharing his lunch with a hungry friend. A third grader was suspended for shaving her head in sympathy for a friend who had lost her hair to chemotherapy. And then there was the high school senior who was suspended for saying “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed.

In South Carolina, where it’s against the law to disturb a school, more than a thousand students a year—some as young as 7 years old—“face criminal charges for not following directions, loitering, cursing, or the vague allegation of acting ‘obnoxiously.’ If charged as adults, they can be held in jail for up to 90 days.”

Things get even worse when you add police to the mix.

Thanks to a combination of media hype, political pandering and financial incentives, the use of armed police officers (a.k.a. school resource officers) to patrol school hallways has risen dramatically in the years since the Columbine school shooting (nearly 20,000 by 2003). What this means, notes Mother Jones, is greater police “involvement in routine discipline matters that principals and parents used to address without involvement from law enforcement officers.”

Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, these school resource officers (SROs) have become de facto wardens in the elementary, middle and high schools, doling out their own brand of justice to the so-called “criminals” in their midst with the help of tasers, pepperspray, batons and brute force.

The horror stories are legion.

One SRO is accused of punching a 13-year-old student in the face for cutting in the cafeteria line. That same cop put another student in a chokehold a week later, allegedly knocking the student unconscious and causing a brain injury.

In Pennsylvania, a student was tased after ignoring an order to put his cell phone away.

A 12-year-old New York student was hauled out of school in handcuffs for doodling on her desk with an erasable marker. Another 12-year-old was handcuffed and jailed after he stomped in a puddle, splashing classmates.

On any given day when school is in session, kids who “act up” in class are pinned facedown on the floor, locked in dark closets, tied up with straps, bungee cords and duct tape, handcuffed, leg shackled, tasered or otherwise restrained, immobilized or placed in solitary confinement in order to bring them under “control.”

In almost every case, these undeniably harsh methods are used to punish kids for simply failing to follow directions or throwing tantrums.

Very rarely do the kids pose any credible danger to themselves or others.

For example, a 4-year-old Virginia preschooler was handcuffed, leg shackled and transported to the sheriff’s office after reportedly throwing blocks and climbing on top of the furniture. School officials claim the restraints were necessary to protect the adults from injury.

A 6-year-old kindergarten student in a Georgia public school was handcuffed, transported to the police station, and charged with simple battery of a schoolteacher and criminal damage to property for throwing a temper tantrum at school.

This is the end product of all those so-called school “safety” policies, which run the gamut from zero tolerance policies that punish all infractions harshly to surveillance cameras, metal detectors, random searches, drug-sniffing dogs, school-wide lockdowns, active-shooter drills and militarized police officers.

Yet these police state tactics did not made the schools any safer.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, police state tactics never make anyone safer so much as they present the illusion of safety and indoctrinate the populace to comply, fear and march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

Now with virtual learning in the midst of this COVID-19 pandemic, the stakes are even higher.

It won’t be long before you start to see police carrying out knock-and-talk investigations based on whatever speculative information is gleaned from those daily virtual classroom sessions that allow government officials entry to your homes in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

It won’t take much at all for SWAT teams to start crashing through doors based on erroneous assumptions about whatever mistaken “contraband” someone may have glimpsed in the background of a virtual classroom session: a maple leaf that looks like marijuana, a jar of sugar that looks like cocaine, a toy gun, someone playfully shouting for help in the distance.

This may sound far-fetched now, but it’s only a matter of time before this slippery slope becomes yet another mile marker on the one-way road to tyranny.

In Wednesday remarks Secretary of Defense Mark Esper touted complete US naval superiority over China, stating firmly, “I want to make clear that China cannot match the United States when it comes to naval power.”

Esper addressed a RAND Corporation event and underscored the major communist power which the US Navy is increasingly butting up against in the South China Sea is ultimately too far behind to close the gap in terms of maritime capability, despite it leading the world in simple ship numbers. He reminded his audience that numbers aren’t everything.

“Even if we stopped building new ships, it would take the [People’s Republic of China] years to close the gap when it comes to our capability on the high seas,” Esper said. “Ship numbers are important, but they don’t tell the whole story.”

“They do not address the types of ships and the capabilities of the vessels being counted; the skill of the crews that operate them; the prowess of the officers that lead them; or the ways in which we fight and sustain them,” Esper added.

He further emphasized that the Department of Defense remains resolved in maintaining that clear dominance, as there are navy plans to expand its overall number of ships, saying “We must increase funding for shipbuilding and the readiness that sustains a larger force.”

On the future of unmanned military vehicles, he said: “This fleet will need to be made up of more and smaller surface combatants; optionally manned, unmanned, and autonomous surface and subsurface vehicles; unmanned carrier-based aircraft of all types; a larger and more capable submarine force; and a modern strategic deterrent.”

His comments raised eyebrows also given it’s widely acknowledged that China has the largest navy in the world, as the Pentagon’s recently issued annual China Military Power report underscored.

“China has already achieved parity with — or even exceeded — the United States in several military modernization areas,” the Pentagon report stated. “The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants,” the report said.

The report said that China is “the top ship-producing nation in the world by tonnage.”

But considering aircraft carriers alone, for example, it’s easy to visualize America’s superiority.

The US Navy has 21 total aircraft carriers, among these 11 large nuclear-powered fleet carriers, while China has a mere two with a third on the way.

Authored by Nils Nilsen via Off-Guardian.org,

12 Steps to Create Your Own Pandemic (Or How to Turn a Harmless Virus into Boundless Profits for You and Your Friends)

Imagine that you had the resources and influence sufficient to create a global pandemic, what would you need to do? How would you get started? And how best to turn it to your advantage and boost your profits?

We have the answers right here.

A simple 12 step plan.

1. Find some vague criteria for what constitutes the symptoms that you want people to look for. Anything subjective that a lot of people can identify with is ideal. Let us take memory problems and/or confusion + a few common ones from the Covid list. Tiredness, aches and pains are common and subjective enough. (For covid19 the symptoms are: fever, dry cough, tiredness. Less common symptoms: aches and pains, sore throat, diarrhoea, loss of taste or smell, a rash, or discolouration of fingers or toes)

It would be a good idea to take something that is very common in old people so that we can use death from old age as proof of the lethality of the new virus.

2. Then we would need something biological to test. Any RNA sequence would do, as long as it is not present in the whole population. If it were, someone might claim herd immunity very quickly. Actually it could be an RNA sequence that does not really exist in humans but something that could exist as contamination in labs, e.g. in dust or water.

That would be enough for a RT qPCR test to pick up as a false positive. Many RT PCRs have false positive rates of 3-5 % and that would be plenty to create a scare. (When it comes to Covid, the false positive rate is impossible to know for sure, since we don’t have a gold standard to check against, but for many other similar tests, the average false positive rate is over 3%. And different labs are testing for different sequences.

We can count on over-stressed labs to be more prone to contamination than labs taking part in research knowing they will be checked for accuracy, the ones that gave over 3% false positives. Maybe the error rate for the average stressed lab is as high as 8%. BMJ counts 5% as a reasonable estimate. With 8% we would have all positive tests in the US explained by false positives)

3. Then we are all set to go. We just have to claim that we have discovered a new cluster of symptoms and that is related to a new RNA sequence. It starts with memory loss, and confusion. In other words this is a neurotoxic virus, and it leads to death in all the ways old people can die, by strokes, heart attacks, pneumonia, kidney failure, sepsis, organ failure, dehydration.

It doesnt matter if the patient was close to deaths door anyway, because of existing problems. We can always claim that without our new virus, they would not have died. Who could counter that?( just like Covid; People die from all kinds of disorders that they already had before the got the Covid test).

4. By some miracle we have already discovered exactly the virus that is responsible among the millions of different viruses that exist in any cubic centimeter of air. So we already have a RT PCR test read to go. This makes us look like very competent researchers. Of course we have bought stock in the major testing labs ahead of time.

We’ve bought stocks in the biggest vaccine manufacturers also of course. That will be the biggest money maker finally, hopefully for years since it will be difficult to get antibodies to something that doesn’t really exist.

5. So now we just have to spread the news that a new deadly pandemic is spreading all over the world, and every country has to start testing. We can count on the 5% hypochondriacs in the general population to come forth to be tested first.

It will always take some time for each country to get started ramping up their testing, so the graphs are guaranteed to look exponential in the beginning.

6. All you need now is for people to bring their old and confused elderly in for testing, and with 5% false positives, we will soon have most hospital beds filled with old sick confused patients.

We can count on doctors to treat them aggressively. Most of these old people will be on a coctail of drugs already, so adding a few more drugs as “heroic treatment” will be sure to push them over the edge.

Many will have pneumonia from the seasonal flu, so we can just prolongue this by putting them on ventilators. Then they will die a month later and we can say it wasn’t the flu since the flu season should have stopped a month earlier.

7. The graphs of numbers tested positive will be exponential in the beginning, but flatten off as the testers reach their max level. After some time the lab technicians will be exhausted and tend to become sloppy, the pressure for testing will be relentless and the labs will get dirtier and dirtier, and we will get higher and higher false-positive rates.

Usually the media will be satisfied with reporting just the number of positive tests, but in case anybody should think of checking proportion of positive tests compared to total number of tests, they would get higher number each week because of overworked, error prone lab workers.

Eventually, society will run out of hypochondriacs who will come for tests voluntarily, and many will have understood that should they test positive, they will be put together with really sick people, unprotected, since they all have the same virus…So the curves will flatten and start going down.

8. If you want to destroy the economy during the pandemic, you will get some programmer to make a prediction of millions of deaths (actually 70 million die every year anyway, so that is not really difficult) if we don’t lock down society.

We just have to scare them to lock down right before the curve flattens (when we are running out of the 5% hypochondriacs) and all the politicians will think they saved their country.

9. Just for fun, to see how strangely we could make gullible people act, we could invent different strategies for protection. Social distancing can look really funny in a supermarket, and all the original ways of saluting is interesting , leg touching elbow touching (even if we cough in our elbows now).

We could make a lot of money on masks, gloves and sanitisers too.

10. In order to make money on vaccines, we will start testing antibodies. Here the false-positive error rate is even greater, so we may easily get 10% with antibodies just from false positives. But on retest, we will statistically get only one percent testing positive if we test the same people.

That means that we can claim that we will need many boosters of the vaccine. In order to maximise the profit, we may put something in the vaccine that makes people sick and then we can cure them with a very expensive drug produced by a company we have already invested in. But to be sure maximum number of countries will pay almost any price for the vaccine, we have to wait until they are really desperate.

11. We can always count on several waves of the virus since the common flu and colds will come every year and kill hundreds of thousands like every year, and 3-10% of them will test false positive for our virus every time.

So we have a fantastic moneymaker for years: Expensive tests, expensive drugs, and expensive vaccines for 7 billion people every year.

12. We can count on doctors being sure that they are right in all they do. They will counter each other in every turn, and since there is no real new disease to cure, the research will run into endless blind alleys. This will prime all doctors for accepting a vaccine.

We just have to make sure there is no cheap effective drug commonly available. If so, we can always pay some doctors to make up some numbers to publish (like the fake negative Hydroxychloroquine research in the Lancet).

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon is hoping to “sell the rip” in the suburban real estate market that has taken place as wealthy families move further out of major U.S. cities.

The investment banking CEO, who doubles as a nightclub DJ, is attempting to sell his massive estate in Aspen for the second time in 3 years.

The property was built to look like a typical log cabin, but features enormous outsized windows that open up to the view of “sweeping vistas”. 

The 83 acre home has an “estimated value of $25 million” according to Bloomberg. Solomon has been speaking to potential buyers over the course of the summer, according to the report.

The property is 13,000 square feet and was completed in 2009 after Solomon purchased it in 2005 for $4 million. It boasts 7 full bathrooms and two half baths.

The property’s listing in 2017 called the house both “classy” and “comfortable”. It also has a cinema, pool, sauna and hot tub. 

As we noted, Solomon is having his second go at trying to sell the property – recall, he tried to sell his home for $36 million back in 2017. Perhaps he is hoping to take advantage of a real estate market that is seeing an exodus from cities and crowded areas as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. 

This shift seems to have lifted property values in Aspen. Bloomberg noted that the “dollar value of single-family home sales in Aspen surged 440% in August from a year earlier”. 

Solomon was unable to find buyers at the $36 million listed price in 2017.

Perhaps with trillions of dollars in PPP money floating around the nation, he’ll have better luck this time. 

Submitted by Priceonomics,

For those who are considering a career in communications, a key question to understand is how much money you’ll be making when you graduate. Furthermore, will that salary be sufficient to pay for the debt involved with getting your degree?

While predicting one’s future income is subject to uncertainty, especially in the current economic climate, there is luckily a lot of data out there. Along with Priceonomics customer MastersInCommunications.org, we analyzed and collected data by the US Department of Education about how much money communications majors earn.

Using data from the College Scorecard, a data resource about the earnings and debt of graduates of US colleges, we looked at which undergraduate communications programs produced the graduates with the best and worst financial prospects.

We found that communications majors from Georgia Tech and the University of Pennsylvania have the highest earnings while Shaw University has the lowest-earning graduates. Colleges like Devry and Grambling State University produce communications graduates with the highest debt while the City University of New York (CUNY) has graduated with the lowest levels of debt.

***

Before beginning the analysis of colleges where communications graduates earn the most and least, let’s look at the overall data. According to the most recent data from the US Department of Education College Scorecard, the median college graduate with a communications degree earns $31,400, approximately the same as the median US worker.

Not all communications programs are created equal, however. And you have ample reason to consider an online masters in communication program. Below shows the distribution of undergraduate communications programs segmented by median annual salary:

55.6% of graduates from college communications programs earn between $30K and $40K per year. In total, nearly 95% of communications majors earn under $40K per year. No undergraduate institution reported communications majors earning above $60K per year. Which colleges produce communications majors that earn the most and least? The following chart shows the schools reporting the highest median earnings among their undergraduates who studied communication:

Communications majors from Georgia Institute of Technology earn the most in the country with a median salary of $57,600 per year. In second place is the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school where graduates earn just under $50,000 per year. In third place is the Mitchell Technical Institute, a technical college in South Dakota.

Communication graduates from Shaw University in Raleigh, North Carolina earn just $14,900 per year, the lowest in the country. SUNY Broome and Technical Career Institute graduates earn the second and third lowest salaries respectively.

When it comes to debt, which schools communication graduates emerge with the highest and lowest burdens?

Communications majors from Devry University emerge with $42,430 in debt, the highest in the country. Grambling State and Lane College communications majors also graduate with more than $40,000 in debt. On the other hand, a number of community colleges graduate communications majors with less than $10,000 in debt.

Having high levels of debt can be a problem, but that can be made up for with having a high income. Which colleges produce communications majors with high debt to income ratios and which ones come out with high incomes relative to their debt? The chart below shows the schools with the best and worst debt to income ratios (Total Debt / Annual Income):

Some of the schools whose students graduate with debt also have the least favorable debt to income ratios. Grambling State University and Shaw University produce communications graduates with the highest debt to income ratios by a considerable margin. On the other hand, schools that produce graduates with low debt relative to their income are a mix of community colleges (CUNY), lower-priced private schools (Brigham Young), higher-priced private schools (Cornell), and state schools (University of California). For a communication major who looks to graduate with a strong income relative to debt, all types of schools may fit the bill.

CBoT soybean futures entered a new bull market in September, soaring 21% in the last five months, with most of the gains (+18%) over the previous 23 sessions as strong demand from China comes online. 

According to Reuters, there’s a lot to be excited about in soybean fundamentals as the demand outlook story brightens with China increasing soybean purchases: 

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed private sales of 327,000 tonnes of U.S. soybeans to China. The USDA has announced U.S. soy sales to China in each of the last nine business days.

• A Farm Futures producers’ survey conducted in late July and released on Wednesday projected a 4.9% rise in U.S. 2021 soybean seedings and a 0.3% drop in corn acres.

Agriculture leaders, including Jim Sutter, CEO of the U.S. Soybean Export Council, told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” on Sept. 10 that “outlook demand for the next six months or so is pretty good.” 

Sutter said, “U.S. farmers are feeling much more optimistic than they said, a year or even six months ago,” adding that China has been buying U.S. soybeans as part of the phase one trade deal signed between both countries in January. 

“Now, as we get into the time of the year, when China is more typically purchasing soybeans from the northern hemisphere — the United States in particular — we are seeing them make significant purchases … we have a record amount of new crop sales open to China at this time, so we are thinking that it is a successful trade deal,” Sutter said.

China is committed to buying $12.5 billion of U.S. farm products under phase one agreement, with another $19.5 billion in 2021. 

“I continue to believe that the phase one agreement is very important and is being executed well,” said Sutter.

We noted, in late August, the “prospects of strong Chinese demand pushed Chicago soybean futures prices to a seven-month high this week.” 

“China has been stepping up purchases of American agricultural goods since the end of April, with soybean sales for delivery next season currently running at their highest level for this time of year since 2013.”

And of particular note is the fact that this surge in prices – on apparent demand – is against the typical seasonal pattern in soybean price action…

While China’s demand for U.S. soybeans appears to be increasing, partly because the country’s hog herd numbers are recovering from the African swine fever outbreak, overall trade deal commitments under the phase one deal will likely not be met this year.

China’s increased soybean purchases is good news for President Trump ahead of the presidential elections on Nov. 03. 

Donald Trump Jr. has weighed in over Nashville officials concealing the low number of COVID-19 cases in bars and restaurants.

In a Thursday tweet, the president’s son said “The Dem Mayor of Nashville KNOWINGLY LIED ABOUT COVID DATA to justify shutting down bars & restaurants, killing countless jobs & small businesses in the process,” adding “Everyone involved should face jail time. How many other Dem run cities is this happening in?”

The Dem Mayor of Nashville KNOWINGLY LIED ABOUT COVID DATA to justify shutting down bars & restaurants, killing countless jobs & small businesses in the process.

Everyone involved should face jail time. How many other Dem run cities is this happening in?https://t.co/8anzs5Jgba

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 17, 2020

* * *

Leaked emails between the senior adviser to Nashville’s Mayor and a health department official reveal a disturbing effort to conceal extremely low coronavirus cases emanating from bars and restaurants, while the lion’s share of infections occurred in nursing homes and construction workers, according to WZTV Nashville.

On June 30th, contact tracing was giving a small view of coronavirus clusters. Construction and nursing homes causing problems more than a thousand cases traced to each category, but bars and restaurants reported just 22 cases.

Leslie Waller from the health department asks “This isn’t going to be publicly released, right? Just info for Mayor’s Office?“

“Correct, not for public consumption.” Writes senior advisor Benjamin Eagles. –WZTV

Four weeks later, Tennessean reporter Nate Rau asked the health department: “the figure you gave of “more than 80” does lead to a natural question: If there have been over 20,000 positive cases of COVID-19 in Davidson and only 80 or so are traced to restaurants and bars, doesn’t that mean restaurants and bars aren’t a very big problem?“

To which health department official Brian Todd scrambled for an answer – asking five health department officials: “Please advise how you respond. BT.”

The response – from an official whose name was omitted from the leaked email: “My two cents. We have certainly refused to give counts per bar because those numbers are low per site,” adding “We could still release the total though, and then a response to the over 80 could be “because that number is increasing all the time and we don’t want to say a specific number.””

According to a metro staff attorney asked by city councilmember Steve Glover to verify the authenticity of the emails, “I was able to get verification from the Mayor’s Office and the Department of Health that these emails are real.”

Glover told WZTV: “They are fabricating information. They’ve blown there entire credibility Dennis. Its gone i don’t trust a thing they say going forward …nothing.”

Glover says he has been contacted by an endless stream of downtown bartenders, waitresses, and restaurant owners. Why would they not release these numbers?

“We raised taxes 34 percent and put hundreds literally thousands of people out of work that are now worried about losing their homes their apartments etcetera and we did it on bogus data. That should be illegal!” he says.

Again, we weren’t told by the mayor’s office this wasn’t true. We were told to file a freedom of information act request. –WZTV

Authored by John Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics.com,

After two Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies were shot and critically wounded on Saturday, Joe Biden warned, “Weapons of war have no place in our communities.” And within just hours of the attack, Biden tweeted in praise of the original bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which lasted from 1994 to 2004. “These bans saved lives, and Congress should never have let them expire,” he wrote.

A handgun, not an assault rifle, was used to shoot the deputies. But it seems that Biden never misses an opportunity to deceptively complain about “weapons of war.”

In the past, Biden and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris have applied this label to AR-15 semi-automatic rifles.  But these guns function exactly as small-game, semi-automatic hunting rifles. Though it looks like the M16 machine gun made famous in the Vietnam War, no military in the world uses the AR-15.

Gun control advocates commonly pose the question:

“Why do people need a semi-automatic AR-15 to go out and kill deer?”

The answer is simple: It is a hunting rifle. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. Semi-automatic weapons are also used to protect people and save lives. Single-shot rifles that require you to physically reload the gun may not do people a lot of good when their first shot misses or fails to stop an attacker. Or, for that matter, if they are facing multiple assailants.

What about Biden’s claims that the assault weapons ban saved lives?

Since the ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent crime rates have fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. The murder rate never returned to that level, and fell to 5.0 per 100,000 people by 2018.

If the ban had any effect, one would think that it would reduce the number of murders committed with rifles. But the percentage of firearm murders that were committed with rifles was at 4.8% prior to the ban starting in September 1994, and averaged 4.9% from 1995 to 2004. In the 10 years after the ban, the figure averaged just 3.9%. This pattern is the opposite of what gun control advocates predicted.

Many academic studies have examined the original federal assault weapons ban.  

They consistently found no statistically significant impact on mass public shootings or any other type of crime. Clinton administration-funded research by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth confirmed as much in a 1997 report for the National Institute of Justice.

“The evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero),” they wrote. 

Koper and Roth suggested at the time that it might be possible to find a benefit after the ban had been in effect for more years. In 2004, they published a follow-up NIJ study with fellow criminologist Dan Woods.

“We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” they concluded.

“And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Gun control advocates often cite work by Louis Klarevas, but his non-peer-reviewed methodologies are highly flawed. For one thing, Klarevas looks only at the total number of mass public shootings, whether they were committed with assault weapons or with other types of guns. While the share of mass public shootings that utilized assault weapons fell during the ban, it fell even more sharply in the 10 years after the ban ended in 2004. And any reduction that the ban caused in attacks with assault weapons may simply have meant more attacks with other types of guns.

Biden’s tweet also touted large-capacity ammunition magazine bans. Contrary to common perception, ordinary hunting rifles can hold just as large a magazine as “assault weapons.” Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. Magazines are basically metal boxes with springs, and are easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines that could hold more than 10 bullets, yet had no effect on crime rates.

Biden is making it clear that gun control is near the top of his agenda. So it’s little wonder that gun control zealot Michael Bloomberg just pledged to spend at least $100 million in Florida alone on behalf of the Biden campaign. But no matter how much Biden wishes it were true, guns bans won’t make American’s safer. With Democrats promising to eliminate the Senate filibuster if they win, gun bans will be an integral part of the radical agenda that they will quickly enact. To his credit, Biden is not hiding it.