Divorce American style

Sent from a friend, with this the original version.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, and Obama/Biden supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is our separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets, since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
—We don’t like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.
–You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
–Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.
–We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.
–You can keep Oprah, Whoopi, Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all five of them.
–We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.
–You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.
–We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEOs, and rednecks.
–We’ll keep Bill O’Reilly and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.
–You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
–You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.
–When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.
–We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
–You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLaine. You can also have the UN., but we will no longer be paying the bill.
–We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
–You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors.
–We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.”
–I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine,” “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing,” “Kum Baya,” or “We Are the World.”
–We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle-up poverty your best shot.
–Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name, and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. 
P.S. Also, please take George Clooney, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Short, Charlie Sheen, Barbra Streisand, and (Hanoi) Jane Fonda with you.
P.P.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.
The oldest version on the net I can find is found here at Snopes. It does have this history which is of interest in itself.

In February 2009, a “Minuteman message board” operated by the right-wing website Renew America published what it called a “Letter from a Law Student” proposing a “model dissolution agreement” between — as it said — “American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters” and the rest of the country.

The “agreement” was also partially reposted at the Patriot Action Network, dated 30 November 1999 (which, of course, predates President Barack Obama’s election by nine years). There is also a version posted on Scribd calling Wall’s proposal a “separation proposal letter.” A month after its 2009 appearance, conservative radio host Neal Boortz featured Wall’s letter on his web site, but the end of the op-ed was changed to: “You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda.”

The letter has also generated attention from liberal websites: In June 2009, Democratic Underground featured it in a thread, calling it a “piece of shit.”  A year later, liberal blogger Rich Merritt posted what he called a “Patriotic Rebuttal” to the piece, which reads in part:

Listen, you are the one who married up, my dear. We are California, the Pacific Northwest, Hawai’i, most of the Midwest, Florida, the Mid-Atlantic and New England. Without us you are Mexico’s ugly step-sister to the north. Most of what we’ve done over the course of our 234-year marriage has been with your best interests in mind even when you literally rebelled. You tried to divorce us once before but we fought you and won. Why? Because despite all your many flaws, we still love you and want you to be better than you are. 

In 2011, the letter reappeared, this time with even more added to the “P.S.” section:

P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbra Steisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S.: And you won’t have to “Press 1 for English” when you call our country.

Forward this every time you get it! Let’s keep this going; maybe some of it will start sinking in!

If you can’t stand behind our Military, Please feel free to stand in front of them!

In the years since, the op-ed has been circulated via message boards, e-mail, and in other nooks and crannies on the Internet (it surfaced on Reddit in June 2013), but no version of the piece has never been definitively tied to a law student named John J. Wall — or any other identifiable person.

The stupidest generation

I no longer know how to deal with any of this. I saw a man driving alone the other day with a mask on his face. See if you can guess which paper is which.

CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC State records nine new local cases as more exposure sites added to list

And from our other local journal.

Nine new cases as Melbourne battles mystery cluster
Melbourne has recorded an alarming spike in cases, just days before a 14-day lockdown is meant to end. Health authorities are racing to contain a mystery cluster involving the more infectious Delta va…

“We are now looking at Mass Murder on an unfathomable scale!”


That’s the conclusion from this article: Fauci and Top US Doctors Caught! They CONSPIRED to Disqualify Hydroxychloroquine as COVID Treatment — MILLIONS DEAD AS A RESULT.

Dr. Fauci  told CNN hydroxychloroquine was actually dangerous when used as a prophylactic against coronavirus. Hydroxychloroquine had been used safely for 65 years in millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19. This statement made headlines throughout the fake new media and it was a complete lie.After Fauci’s statements on hydroxychloroquine, the tech giants began censoring any mention of the drug. The media mocked President Trump and anyone who suggested the drug was safe and effective. Doctors treating coronavirus patients were suspended from their social media accounts.And hundreds of thousands of people died.It was all based on a lie perpetrated by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

And there are a number of Chief Medical Officers here in Australia who should now be asked a number of questions. The article, which you should read in full, continues:

Now there is more information that it was not just Fauci but all of the top US medical leaders who were in on the hydroxychloroquine lie.Dr. Meryl Nass, MD, broke this story in The Defender. According to Dr. Nass, the top health officials were all in on the conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine.

And when they have finished with HCQ they can move onto Invermectin.

This lunatic was once Governor of the Bank of Canada AND the Bank of England

Our governing classes have amongst them the biggest bunch of lunatics every congregated in world history. The only thing different is that Mark Carney tells you what he thinks. The questions now are, does anyone appreciate what he is saying, do enough people in positions to make a difference understand that Carney and his colleagues are serious about doing what they say, and will anyone know how to ensure he never gets to do what he wants. And he is by no means alone.

The quotations below are from an article in Canada’s National Post: Mark Carney, man of destiny, arises to revolutionize society. It won’t be pleasant. You need to read the whole thing, which is long, but this is a sample of what you will find at the link.

Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the “Great Reset,” or the “Green New Deal,” or “Building Back Better.” All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, more safe and more woke world.

Yet another visionary, just like Mao, Stalin and Lenin. So let’s hear more of what he wants and is working to implement.

Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects. First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a “partner” in reshaping the economy and society. Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse. Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: “Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,” he promises.

A world of lockdown but one which goes on forever. 

The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by “sustainable finance,” which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, “climate roadkill.” What ESG actually represents is corporate ideological compulsion.

And where does this take us?

Carney has a lot to put straight with the world. According to his new book, and the related BBC Reith Lectures that Carney delivered last year, the three great crises of credit (2008–09 version), COVID and climate are all rooted in a single problem: People in general, and markets in particular, are not as wise, moral or far-seeing as Mark Carney.

And what does he see?

Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this “corroded” society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

Carney has been a prime pusher of “net-zero,” the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is “highly valued by society.” In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of “society,” he is talking about a small, radical element of it….

Carney also commends the knowledge and wisdom of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg: “The power of Greta Thunberg’s message lies in the way she drives home both the cold logic of climate physics and the fundamental unfairness of the climate crisis.”

And like all Marxists, he has his own version of what Marx’s message is.

Mark Carney cries crocodile tears at the possible viability of the Marxist perspective in today’s political environment. But if there is one sure sign of a Marxist, it’s a belief that capitalism is — or is about to be – in “crisis.” His new book has an appendix on Marx’s theory of surplus value: that all profits are wrung from the hides of labour. He also cites Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels. In particular he notes “Engels’ pause,” the one period in capitalist history, early in the 19th century, when workers may not have shared the increases in productivity brought about by industrialization.

Of course, there will be a few eggs cracked before the omelette is cooked.

Carney projects that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (a phenomenon much invoked by the WEF) might bring about a similar period [of economic decay], thus providing a source of political unrest. “(I)t could be generations before the gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are widely shared,” he writes. “In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment, sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest… If this world of surplus labour comes to pass, Marx and Engels could again become relevant.”

He thinks he sees where all this will go, and how fortunate we will be when it is all done. But first…

Carney claims powerful parallels between Marx’s time and our own. “Substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for the steam engine, and Twitter for the telegraph, and current dynamics echo those of that era. Then, Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto in the reading room of the British Library. Today, radical viral blogs and tweets voice similar outrage.”

In fact, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, based on a tract by Engels, in Brussels, not at the British Library, but it’s more important to remember where Marx’s misguided and immutable outrage led: to a disastrous economic and political model that generated poverty and mass murder on an unprecedented scale. Meanwhile “outrage” is surely a dubious basis for policy. The outraged are certainly a useful constituency for those seeking power, however, which brings us to the influence on Carney of the man who first tried to put Marxism into practice.

But he does have his vision.

Carney’s plan is global. “We need,” he claims, “to electrify everything and turn electricity generation green.” The problem is that wind- and solar-powered electricity needs both hefty government subsidies and fossil-fuel backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Green electricity is inflexible, expensive and disruptive to grids….

His own version involves not the metaphorical and benign process of market innovation making old technologies redundant, but a deliberate suppression of viable technologies to make way for less reliable and less economic alternatives.

How will he get away with it?

Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism. Indeed, companies in our one-party ESG state are already pleading like show-trial defendants, making suicidal net-zero commitments, lest banks cut them off.

And how will this be accomplished?

Part of Carney’s strategy is to force “voluntary” standards on banking and industry, then have governments make those standards compulsory. The major accounting firms appear keen to promote the possibility of endless auditing extensions, under which the relatively straightforward metric of money is to be replaced by the infinitely malleable concepts of “purpose” and “impact.”

And where is all this to end?

What Carney ultimately wants … is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism. He suggests that “governments can delegate certain aspects of the calibration of specific instruments… to Carbon Councils in order to improve the predictability, credibility and impact of climate policies.” These carbon councils will be able to demand that national governments “comply or explain” when they inevitably fall short of targets. 

Here’s the final para of the article, summing up Carney’s aims.

Carney is a man on a mission to change global society. “Business as usual” — the most hated phrase in the socialist lexicon — is “ultimately catastrophic,” he writes. There is too much “misplaced acceptance of the status quo.” But somehow the new socialism will not be socialism as usual. This time it’s different. We can because we must. The threat is too great to permit any argument.

I will just end with this quote from the article which seems so exact.

H. L. Mencken observed that “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.” 

These people are lunatics but very powerfully placed lunatics. Madmen in authority, raving at the world but with the power to create enormous havoc. 

These people are genuine totalitarians

What do these people know about “freedom”? You are looking at the essence of a totalitarian mindset You will follow their orders or we will continue to lock you in your homes. Here’s the text.

Minister warns of more lockdowns unless 70% of Victorians get vaccinated BUSINESSES in Victoria are being urged to campaign for staff to get vaccinated amid warnings almost three quarters of the state needs the jab before tough lockdowns end.

The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal Small Business Minister Jaala Pulford met industry leaders last week and warned 70 per cent of Victoria needed to be vaccinated to end lockdowns.

Leaders were told that public health teams were likely to maintain harsh restrictions during major outbreaks until the vast majority of people were vaccinated.

Meanwhile, Victoria’s multibillion-dollar construction industry faces an anxious wait after a cleaner tested positive for coronavirus at a city building site. Last night 170 workers from the Queen St site were in isolation awaiting test results amid fears more cases could spark more site closures.

I hope they end up in the dock with the others.


And just what liability is the state government going to take on itself if things go wrong? As in below.


Not to mention this.


Serfdom + Netflix + Welfare might be just the thing for most people

Although she’s big into “I told you so” mode, I’m not into that at all. In life, you never know when a tile might fall off a roof and hit you on the head. Same with who might get Covid or when. But I do agree with this by Sarah Hoyt, suitably amended.

I was suicidallydepressed amazed that no one else seemed to see it. Honestly? I still don’t understand why. The numbers from the Diamond Princess were clear enough, but more than that, the fact that our institutions announced they wouldn’t audit cases of Covid-19, meaning there was no penalty for inflating the numbers, which they were being given extra money for; and the “must not question” policies of the social media and news media made it obvious what was happening: it’s a scam.

Anyway, read her take, and with this I especially agree.

At the same time somehow the media, the panic, the insanity, was all in the holy name of convincing people this was the most lethal thing ever. Oh, and crashing the economy. And being able to steal the election. (Thank you, Americans. Even with all that shit, all the crazy bullshit, you voted for Trump in such numbers these assholes needed to fraud openly, in the light of day, in the most clumsy way possible.) ALL OF IT was a political coup; a way to take down a successful president and install a China stooge. ALL OF IT.

That always seemed to be the agenda. Meantime, tradespeople I have been dealing with for years are shutting down their businesses with nothing to show for it other than years of effort thrown away because of an uncaring and completely clueless government (specially here in Victoria) and the credulous fools who vote for them. This seems sadly all too accurate.

The side effects of this are horrific: we have unemployed people…. We have people who missed their cancer diagnosis and are now dying. We have people who died of other illnesses, because going to the hospital wasn’t a thing…. We have elderly who started developing cognitive problems after being isolated for over a year. We have teens committing suicide. We have food wasted in big honking batches because restaurants were closed.

And there is this to dwell on as well from the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance – Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19. But I will end going back to Sarah and her post where she wrote:

I urge you very strongly to look at the members of the Junta and their helpers, and visualize the real people behind the masks. Visualize people who destroy a country and the world for the sake of more power over everyone, and to keep their misdeeds from coming out. I URGE you to contemplate that they’d rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. And then, if you ever again believe any of the media-ginned-up hysterias without checking facts or using your brain, be aware that next time the “I told you so” will have teeth. That knee to the groin will go all the way up. Oh, not administered by me, but by those younger and with more to lose who will be absolutely tired of this shit. And what comes after might not be civilization as we know it.

If you could not visualise today from what you knew in 2019, you will not be able to visualise what is coming in 2023. Civilisation as we know it has certainly gone. What’s next? Who knows? But what you do know is that the serfs didn’t mind serfdom at the time, so going forward, Serfdom + Netflix + Welfare (with the footie thrown in), might be just the thing for most people.

And then, just to finish off: What Happens When Doctors Can’t Tell the Truth?. A sample from the text:

“People are afraid to speak honestly,” said a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. “It’s like back to the USSR, where you could only speak to the ones you trust.” If the authorities found out, you could lose your job, your status, you could go to jail or worse. The fear here is not dissimilar.

Lots of things are not dissimilar.

Our present political leaders will one day be among the most hated people in history

The now near-universal revulsion at the name of Anthony Fauci is coming for every political leader who has pushed this fraud on the rest of us. This is virtually the entire text from Doctors, Lawyers & COVID. There is no moral sense in any of this.

The Drug that Cracked Covid may be the most important article you’ll read this year. There’s a lot of information there, but at its core is the story of Judy Smetkiewicz, an active 80-year-old who lives near Buffalo, New York.

Three days before Christmas, Judy tested positive for COVID-19. A week later, an ambulance transported her to hospital. By New Year’s Eve, she was on a ventilator in ICU. Her family was advised that 80% of people in her position never recover. They were told she’d likely remain that way – sedated and unresponsive, in a facility they were barred from entering – for a month before she fully succumbed and died.

But Judy’s family was pushy. They watched a video of Pierre Kory testifying before a US Senate committee a few weeks earlier (see  below). He’s an ICU doctor who has treated hundreds of COVID patients in New York City and elsewhere. In the video, he discusses Ivermectin – a safe, cheap, generic drug that has potent anti-COVID properties. This drug, he testified, is saving lives wherever it gets used.

When Judy’s family asked her ICU physician to give her Ivermectin, he refused. It hasn’t been explicitly approved by health agencies as a COVID-19 treatment, he explained, and “we don’t experiment on our patients.” Not even when they’re at death’s door, almost certain to perish anyway.

Judy’s family kept pushing. A hospital administrator finally relented, approving a single dose of Ivermectin. Less than 24 hours later, Judy no longer needed that ventilator. Shortly afterward, though, she began to decline. Her family asked for another dose of Ivermectin. The hospital refused. That’s when they hired a lawyer.

How bizarre. In the middle of a pandemic, a group of experienced, accomplished, respected physicians for whom Kory is a spokesperson say they’ve found an effective treatment. But hospitals refuse to dispense that treatment. Which compels already-traumatized families to hire lawyers.

A judge ruled in favour of Judy’s family, ordering the hospital to dispense four more doses. It refused to carry out the judge’s order. Another hearing was held. The hospital finally agreed to dispense additional doses if Judy’s family doctor wrote the prescription.

This looks, of course, like old-fashioned butt-covering. The hospital appears to have been OK with Judy dying. But not OK with using a drug off-label, even though a US government website explains this happens all the time:

Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use. [bold added]

After spending a month in a rehab facility, Judy returned home.