It’s always for political reasons

This is from The Spectator online:

Xin Du asks if the Daniel Andrews government in Victoria is keeping children masked for political, rather than medical reasons…

Masking children is idiotic but you may be sure Andrews has focus-grouped this to the fullest extent possible. Of course, it’s not for medical reasons. In politics it is always for political reasons. It’s embarrassing to read such inane things from a source where I expect them to know better.

“The real motives behind the increasing totalitarian control taking over the globe”

Planet Lockdown: A Documentary tells this story:

  • The film Planet Lockdown explores this unprecedented time in history, speaking with epidemiologists, scientists, doctors and other experts to uncover the real motives behind the increasing totalitarian control taking over the globe
  • Dr. Scott Jensen, a family doctor and former member of the Minnesota Senate, received an email from the Department of Health that coached him to use COVID-19 as a diagnosis incorrectly
  • The notion of asymptomatic spread turns virtually anyone you meet or encounter on the street into the enemy or a threat, furthering fear and control
  • The artificially imposed state of incoherence that’s been enacted during the pandemic is described as a torture tactic, designed to get people to submit to vaccine passports and COVID-19 shots
  • Many of the experts in the film bring up the Nuremberg Code, which is being violated as people are forced to get experimental shotsCivil disobedience, boycotting businesses that are requiring vaccine passports, participating in rallies and fighting illegal mandates in court are ways that everyone can get involved in protecting freedom

As it also says at the link:

Prior to 2020, if you heard the term “lockdown” you might think of something that happens in a prison — not in a free society. This mechanism of control has since become commonplace — not among prisoners but among the free — with repercussions that are only beginning to be understood.

The film Planet Lockdown explores this unprecedented time in history, speaking with epidemiologists, scientists, doctors and other experts to uncover the real motives behind the increasing totalitarian control taking over the globe. Already banned by Facebook and YouTube, the film starts at the beginning of the pandemic, when we were told lockdowns were necessary to “flatten the curve.”

This was supposed to be a short-term, 15-day event in the U.S., but the narrative soon changed to ongoing restrictions. As Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, explained, people have historically quarantined the sick, but quarantining healthy people, as has occurred for the past two years, has no scientific backing or historic precedence.

“Given this virus represents, at most, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than seasonal influenza, and a less risk, a smaller risk, to almost everyone else who’s younger and fit,” Yeadon says, “it was never necessary for us to have done anything. We didn’t need to do anything — lockdowns, masks, testing, vaccines even.”

And under the heading New Control Systems are being Engineered it adds this:

If a few people want to control many, how can you get the sheep into the slaughterhouse without them realizing and resisting? “The perfect thing,” Austin-Fitts says, is invisible enemies, like viruses.17 This ramps up fear so the public believes they need the government to protect them. Another effective tactic is “divide and conquer,” and the media plays an important role in this, dividing people over shots and masks, for instance.

“What COVID-19 is,” Austin-Fitts explains, “is the institution of controls necessary to convert the planet from the democratic process to technocracy. So what we’re watching is a change in control and an engineering of new control systems. So think of this as a coup d’état. It’s much more like a coup d’état than a virus.”18

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former public health official and member of German parliament, agrees, stating that pandemic responses have “nothing to do with hygiene. It has to do with criminology.”19 The global injection campaign is another form of control, one that’s forcing the public to receive experimental shots.

Many of the experts in the film bring up the Nuremberg Code, which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles was developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

But in the current climate of extreme censorship, people are not being informed about the full risks of the shots — which are only beginning to be uncovered. People are being forced into the shots due to mandates and loss of jobs and personal freedoms, like the ability to travel freely and attend business and social events.

I will only say that if all this is true, there will be no resisting whatever these people have in mind.

The media narrative and The Ukraine

I am still waiting to find out the Russian side of the story which is impossible to find. But there are is first of all this: Majority of Americans Sense Something Doesn’t Add Up in the Media Ukraine Narrative. This is how the article begins.

 The bad news is the propaganda from the global media and intelligence apparatus is astronomical surrounding the Ukraine narrative.  The good news is that most Americans can sense the background manipulation, even if they cannot quite put a finger on it.

You can see the general sense of distrust across the broad spectrum of discussions online and in almost all social media platforms.  The majority of people sense something just doesn’t add up. While the people who follow political events closely are the ones who can see the more specific details of the manipulation.   Those who were paying closest attention, in the 2014 Ukraine story line, are the ones who see the same methods deployed.

There is then this: Neil Oliver Outlines Google Moral Relativism and the Media Approved Hatred Against Russians.

Oliver can see we are in a new world order kind of place.  A place where government, big tech social discussion platforms, and the mindful authorities in charge of directing our focus, have decided in their unilateral magnanimity, to dust off the moral relativism tools, use the fine-tuning mechanism, and target our attention so that we hate the Russians.

Trying to find someone who can explain things from the Russian perspective would be interesting. And there is also this: Tucker Carlson suggests US government officials WANTED Russia to invade Ukraine because emergency Covid powers had expired and the war would distract from domestic issues.

Possible and even plausible but still, what do the Russians think, and why have they invaded? An answer is perhaps provided here in an amazingly even-handed article by Conrad Black: In Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher for the West. The title is more alarmist than the text which at least sets out a sensible pathway into the future.

Brain dead and stupid are apparently what now attracts young women

‘Caring about climate change is the new tall, dark, and handsome’.

Popular dating app OkCupid recently discovered that an overwhelming majority of its users say less-than-progressive views on climate change, gender equality, and gun control are “dealbreakers” when it comes to finding a match.

And you may be sure that tall, dark and handsome still matters as well. Not to mention how wealthy the chap might be.

The causes of inflation go well beyond growth in the supply of money

There was a time that even economists understood that the story of inflation went well beyond increases in the stock of money. But Keynesian theory, with its Y=C+I+G, is now so embedded across the mindset of everyone as a means to make economies grow, and not just amongst economists but there as well, that the bizarre rates of growth in public spending in the US is seen as normal and generally appropriate. In reality, it is not just the cause of inflation but will create vast pockets of poverty as well.

Saw the chart at Powerline with the heading about class dismissed. There was at least this one comment so that someone else does see the deeper nature of the problem.

If an economist tells you modern monetary theory works, that person is NOT an economist. Run.

We are on the edge of a precipice in so many ways that it is hard to see how we will survive the next five years.


Came across a couple of additional posts that seem to add to the issue. First from Instapundit.

“I know there’s a lot going on in the world today, but can we just take a moment to reflect on how crazy it is that the United States House of Representatives just passed a $1.5 TRILLION spending bill that no one has read?”

And then from the comments there was this.


There is no naturalistic explanation to account for the origin of sex

It has always been an active mystery to me how evolution allowed the male of the species to evolve in just such a way that sexual relations with the female of the species was not only possible but successful. Darwinian theory should make such chance parallel evolution by random chance and natural selection an impossibility. All this is discussed here: Evolutionary Theories On Gender And Sexual Reproduction.

Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders-each with its own physiology?  If, as evolutionists have argued, there is a materialistic answer for everything, then the question should be answered:  Why sex?  Is sex the product of a historical accident or the product of an intelligent Creator?  The current article reviews some of the current theories for why sexual reproduction exists today.  Yet, as these theories valiantly attempt to explain why sex exists now, they do not explain the origin of sex.  We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.

I have asked biologists but no one knows, and there are no theories that even come close to sounding plausible. 


Under the Biden administration, the U.S. is standing with the Iranians

This is an article by Caroline Glick: Biden Shatters Israel’s Delusions. Here is the final para but read the whole thing if you would like to understand how the world is structured today politically.

The contest between Iran and Israel pits a country of 90 million against a country of nine million; a theocratic regional hegemon with manifold foreign legions against a liberal democracy with no aspirations for territorial conquest. And under the Biden administration, the U.S. is standing with the Iranians.

But since Biden is also standing with the Ukrainians, hardly anyone’s going to worry.

There is this as well just to add to the present brew of events: Netanyahu charges government showing ‘weakness’ in face of upcoming Iran deal.

Bennett, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz “are simply not ready to confront even our allies,” he says.

“The silence of Israel during these days — except for some pro forma statements — leads our friends in the US” to also silence their own opposition to the deal….

“If they don’t see, if they don’t hear Israel opposing it, why should they oppose it themselves,” Netanyahu adds, claiming that Israel’s “strong opposition to the last deal” in 2015 “helped the US exit the deal” in 2018.

The Israeli Biden administration

This is a comment on this post: THE MADNESS OF SLOW JOE, IRAN EDITION. It’s about the Israeli government that has replaced Netanyahu.

You aren’t familiar with the current government there, which Tom Friedman appropriately dubbed “the Israeli Biden administration.” They were installed in power by the Dems and the Never Trumpers to tie Israel’s hands in the fateful months while this deal was being negotiated. Barring a miracle, Israel is now in for a very difficult new reality. They will need a change of government, soon, to stop sliding further into an abyss.

Comes with this:

Not forgetting Biden and the Democrats in all this.

China is the real danger

Finding critics of the pile-on over Russia’s attack on The Ukraine is almost impossible, and that is in itself a cause for worry. Since I still do not know why Russia invaded, what their purpose is or why they took on such a massive task, I will just watch to see what comes up.

Meanwhile there was this from Peter Hitchens which at least explains some of it: The West acts tough with Russia because we’re just too feeble to stand up to our real enemy… China. Here’s how he ends.

I have never seen any attempt by anyone to reply to the urgent condemnation of this decision, made in 1998 by one of the greatest diplomats who ever lived, George Kennan. Mr Kennan, inventor of the successful strategy of ‘containment’ of the Soviet Union, came out of retirement to protest.

He said Nato expansion was folly, and correctly predicted it would create nationalist backlash in Moscow. Did the neo-conservatives who created this policy really think Russia, with its huge intelligence services and vast, sophisticated foreign policy establishment, would not notice that it was being targeted?

Russia guards its interests, as do all nations, just as rain falls downwards and water is wet. Out of this realisation came Vladimir Putin, the direct consequence of the Wolfowitz doctrine. We created him.

In fact, Wolfowitz and Clinton were simply wrong. China was the real danger. Think about this. In 1989, the Soviet Empire gave way to mass demonstrations in Prague and East Germany. It could have massacred protesters in Leipzig, Dresden and Berlin, but it did not. After a few nasty but feeble attempts to fight demands for independence in the Baltic states and Georgia, Russia gave up its enormous empire in Europe and Asia. In return, Russia was treated like a pariah by the EU and Nato when it sought a civilised relationship with them.

That same year, China’s Communists answered their people’s demands for freedom by murdering them on the streets of Peking.

I cannot see how this will ever work to the advantage of the Russians. In the end, this can only work to the advantage of China and Joe Biden, two of the greatest enemies the West has ever had.

There is also this by Pat Buchanan which follows the same sort of path: Did We Provoke Putin’s War in Ukraine?.

When Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanded that the U.S. rule out Ukraine as a future member of the NATO alliance, the U.S. archly replied: NATO has an open-door policy. Any nation, including Ukraine, may apply for membership and be admitted. We’re not changing that.

In the Bucharest declaration of 2008, NATO had put Ukraine and Georgia, ever farther east in the Caucasus, on a path to membership in NATO and coverage under Article 5 of the treaty, which declares that an attack on any one member is an attack on all.

Unable to get a satisfactory answer to his demand, Putin invaded and settled the issue. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will become members of NATO. To prevent that, Russia will go to war.

Peace in our time, but only on our terms.