[ChildrensHealthDefense] When will we get to the actual guilty in this perpetually lied about Bio-Weapons Lab developed and released Virus Pandemic?
When will Crimes Against Humanity trials be held, and sentences be handed out for ALL involved from the top to bottom?
As it stands today the professionals, and various research experts that tried to warn us, are the only ones to have been punished and professionally excommunicated.
When will we see justice for the 6.9 Million known to have died from this Bio-Weapons Grade Virus ?
#2
How does this increase compare in raw numbers to the decrease in abortions in red states that passed abortion-limiting laws? How does it compare to the increase in abortions in blue states that have declared themselves open to abortion tourists?
Incidentally, how real is the 6.9 million number of Covid-19 deaths, when we have reports that reported deaths due to/with the disease was deliberately inflated by — if I recall correctly — some 30%?
#3
^ I agree T.W. has a valid point on the 6.9M reported C-19 death numbers not being 100%.
But let us say, even they were just 50% correct, that's still 3.45 Million that died due to a Man-made Bio-weapon.
Regarding the study
It was conducted in Switzerland .
by Luzern University professor Dr. Konstantin Beck which stated the data shows miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland
Abortion in Switzerland is legal during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, upon condition of counseling, for women who state that they are in distress. It is also legal with medical indications – threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the woman – at any later time.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Alexander Dugin
[RIA] As our society is drawn deeper into the civilizational conflict with the West, and the confrontation with it in Ukraine becomes more and more bitter, the issue of censorship and even repression becomes more and more urgent.
Let's start with the fact that censorship and repression exist in any society. It is always built around a well-defined ideology, a system of basic attitudes and principles. At the same time, they are never strictly spelled out in criminal or administrative law, but rather predetermine an ideological vector that acts as an additional driver of the law and its application. What is permissible and what is not, what can be tolerated and what requires the intervention of the state by force, is never determined by the alienated law.
On the contrary, the laws are adopted by the bearers of the ruling ideology, they also give their interpretation and they also build a hierarchy - when, to whom and in what cases they should be applied more or less strictly. They also monitor the application and the system of punishment. Therefore, the sociologist Weber accurately determined that "only the state has a legitimate right to violence."
Modern Western society is no exception in this sense and is fundamentally no different from other totalitarian regimes of recent centuries, be it communism or fascism. The difference lies only in ideology and methods, but otherwise any ruling ideology functions in the same way: what corresponds to it is accepted, what goes beyond its framework or, moreover, challenges the ideological foundations (in this case, liberalism) becomes object of censorship and repression.
Liberalism builds its censorship policy on criticism, marginalization, demonization of any illiberal theories, value systems and practices, criminalizes them by removing everything connected with them from any information and network platforms, and then eliminates the bearers of illiberal views themselves. This is called "cancel culture", "wakefulness" (wokeism) and so on.
Modern liberal ideology considers any belonging to a collective identity, including race, gender, and even belonging to the human species (transhumanism), the consequence of the free choice of the individual. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a criminal. Hence the persecution of supporters of the classical family, patriots, bearers of any collectivist teachings. Anyone who is suspected of a lack of liberalism is denied access to major channels, mass media and even social networks.
At the same time, if anyone, even from among the elite, stumbles, deviates from the liberal (completely totalitarian) agenda, then ostracism, censorship and repression follow immediately. Only the famous African American rapper Kanye West put on a T-shirt with the innocent inscription White lives matter (too) ("White lives also mean something"), as overnight in the eyes of the public he turned into a marginal, extremist and socially dangerous element. Anything that goes against the ruling ideology is immediately suppressed.
Of course, not only liberal regimes are totalitarian (both fascism and communism were totalitarian regimes), but if they are too, then there are no exceptions. And this must be acknowledged.
So, the question of the need for censorship and repression as such has been removed. It remains only to find out what kind of censorship and what kind of repression should be in our modern Russian society. They are inevitable, but what are they?
We are waging a civilizational war with the West, where the liberal ideology has triumphed. We affirm our traditional values, and the president even issued Decree No. 809 on the need to protect them from the side of the state. And these values - mercy, love for the Fatherland, justice, a strong family, the triumph of spirit over matter, solidarity, and so on - have little in common with liberalism. Therefore, it is quite obvious that our censorship and our repressions must proceed from other criteria than in the modern liberal West. In this case, simply "copying and pasting" Western standards for combating dissent and deploying repression on their basis would be complete absurdity.
However, the vestiges in our society of the Western liberal stereotypes that dominated in previous decades are still very strong. We are no longer in the field of liberal ideology, moreover, we are at war with the countries of this camp, we proclaim Russia a separate civilization with its own value system, but we still (sometimes out of inertia) are guided by their example.
For liberals, the classical opponents are those who recognize either a national (right) or class (left) collective identity. Therefore, they are primarily subject to censorship and repression, since any objection to liberalism and individualism - and today against globalism, LGBT, critical racial theory, multiculturalism and transhumanism - is already considered a "crime of thought."
At the same time, the liberals - after all, they are the ideological hegemon! - are considered not just acceptable, but normative carriers of the dominant worldview. Liberals immediately place their enemies in the category of "fascists" (right) or "Stalinists" (left), and then their fate is unenviable. Today, the “deification of Zelensky” has been added to the universally mandatory set of liberal values,
How to build our sovereign censorship and what should be chosen as a criterion for objectively inevitable repressions?
So far, they have introduced the principle of a ban on criticizing the president and the army in the context of military operations. Quite clear and transparent criteria. There is also a provision already adopted on the ban on public criticism of the special military operation itself. And the more severe the conflict, the more strictly these criteria will be applied.
In the depths of his soul or at the family table, a person can afford to have his own "dissenting opinion" about the NVO, the army and the president. Although it has already become commonplace in the liberal West to inform, for example, to children, that parents in a home conversation allowed themselves to criticize either multiculturalism, or transgender people, or Zelensky, or illegal migrants and, in particular, boorish Ukrainian refugees. And there are consequences for this.
But we are still talking about public violations of this rule. There is complete freedom in the family circle: say what you want. But I still wouldn't use it.
Ideological criteria have not yet been introduced, and here we still remain captive to the liberal inertia of previous eras. By imitating the West, we also introduced the conservative-patriotic and left-socialist segments of our society into the category of "unreliable". Derogatory characteristics copied from the liberal West were sometimes applied to them, whence the pejorative term "red-brown" that flourished in the Russian elite in the 1990s.
It meant "not liberals" - either on the left or on the right (and sometimes on both sides at the same time). This era has long passed, but the attitudes laid down in it - including in law enforcement agencies, the FSBand in the political bloc of the Russian government - partly preserved. If we were liberals, this would be understandable. But we are at war with liberals. Therefore, the time has definitely come to correct censorship guidelines and more clearly define the grounds for ideological repression.
Yes, there are figures on the right and left flanks in Russia who criticize the president, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and sometimes even doubt the need for the SVO.
This is forbidden, for this the state must punish mercilessly. But it is worth paying attention to the fact that ideologically and socially active people who make up the backbone of volunteers and the core of those who help them day and night throughout the country are almost exclusively carriers of right-wing or left-wing patriotic ideas. That is, the NVO lies ideologically on the shoulders of those who profess any ideology other than the liberal one. Paraphrasing Yegor Letov: "There are no liberals in the trenches under fire." Yes, and atheists too. Therefore, the presence of a right-conservative or left-socialist ideology among those who are guilty should be considered rather not an aggravating factor, but something that alleviates (without removing, of course) guilt.
And vice versa: when criticism of the president, the leadership of the army or the NWO as a whole and the corresponding actions in this direction come from liberals - that is, those who obviously share the ideology of our civilizational enemy - then in this case this is precisely an aggravating circumstance. And the presence of the liberal ideology itself (which is easily recognizable as bestial hatred for right and left patriots, that is, for the same "red-browns") is obviously an alarming signal "Treason is possible! Beware, liberal extremism!".
The case of the liberal terrorist Darya Trepova, who brutally murdered military commissar Vladlen Tatarskyand crippled other peaceful and innocent people - is quite indicative. Of course, not all liberals are convinced terrorists, but their ideology is directed precisely in this direction. After all, not all Muslims who read Wahhabi and Salafi literature banned in Russia dare to kill or blow themselves up with shahid belts.
But as soon as law enforcement agencies find such books or receive information that fundamentalism is being preached in such and such an Islamic center, tough preventive measures follow. It would make sense to do the same with liberals. Recorded the fact of reading or passing on Popper's book "The Open Society and Its Enemies", this black bible of George Soros, or an unhealthy interest in the liberal Satanist Ayn Rand - and immediately took note.
And banning the liberal media and giving the most innocent the status of a foreign agent is already a step in the right direction. Before you become a liberal, you must first think carefully about what you will have to pay for it.
A liberal cannot be a Russian patriot at all, since he thinks of himself as a "citizen of the world" and a bearer of the values of Western civilization. US or EU _a liberal can still somehow support the state, especially when it is at war with illiberal opponents. But in Russia such a situation is impossible. Of course, there are former liberals or those who consider themselves "liberals" by mistake (due to lack of knowledge and understanding). It's not about them.
But to share the ideology of the enemy, with whom there is a real war, is already the first step towards committing a crime. Imagine how they would treat a Soviet person reading "Mein Kampf" (banned in Russia) and sharing its main provisions during the Great Patriotic War. And Popper, so you can? And "Rain" (thank God, banned in Russia) to watch, and to listen to the escaped "Echo of Moscow"? Ekho Moskvy, by the way, escaped because it stopped relaying the Moscow discourse.they don't say that anymore, and the echo now carries other words.
Now censorship and repressions, which are just beginning, are responding to the most obvious challenges. But these are the first steps. And in the conditions of confrontation with the West, it would be completely stupid inside the country to completely copy its criteria - what is possible and what is not. Some of what is possible in the West is also possible here. But some things are no longer possible. And some of what is possible with us is now impossible in the West (for example, listening to Sputnik or watching RT). And with us - listen and look I don’t want to.
Well, Instagram ** and FB ** (instruments of cultural civilizational aggression banned in Russia) - they can, but we don’t. In this distinction between censorship and repressive strategies, let the identity of civilizations flourish. By the way, in China, in general, everything is different with "possible" and "impossible". There is no society where everything is possible. But there is no society where nothing is allowed at all. Something is always possible.
Therefore, the status of a foreign agent can be preliminarily issued to all liberals. This is not yet a challenge to the UK , and even less a black funnel. Not even recognition as a foreign agent. Just took note. Preliminary.
Generally speaking, it is necessary to go beyond all three political ideologies of the European Modern Age (liberalism, communism and nationalism) and establish your own authentic sovereign worldview on the basis of the fundamental values of our people and our state. And then, starting from it, build your own strategy of censorship and repression. Turned in the name of unity, power and loyalty against the ideological enemies of Russia - overt and covert.
#1
Yes they do. Unfortunately, so does our government. They actively work with the major social media to censor our speech and do everything they can to ostracizes those that speak out against them.
[BEE] WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas was summoned to Capitol Hill today to give testimony before a congressional committee that he is not, in fact, bald. Mayorkas stood by his previous claims that he is not bald even after photographic and video evidence otherwise was made public.
"There is simply no truth to the rumors that I am bald," Mayorkas said as the lights of the room where the hearing was being held reflected brightly off his smooth scalp. "My thick, full head of hair that you can clearly see right here before you is proof that I'm being honest with you and the American people."
Republican members of the committee expressed exasperation that Mayorkas continued to deny his baldness despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. "What do you mean you're not bald?!" shouted Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan. "We can see you! We're sitting here right now staring at your weird-looking cueball head! People don't get any more bald than that! I'm sure the next thing you're going to try to tell me is that the border is secure. This is outrageous!"
Though media reports and witness testimony seemed to corroborate allegations of Mayorkas's baldness, the Secretary maintained his forthrightness. "People saying I'm bald are simply trying to mislead the public," he said. "I'm dealing in facts here, not fringe conspiracies."
At publishing time, Jordan and the other members of the committee were scheduling additional hearings to give impassioned speeches and publicly scold Mayorkas for his refusal to admit his baldness.
[BEE] LOUISVILLE, KY — A local family was faced with a difficult decision this week regarding whether to place their beloved grandpa in hospice care or have him announce a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. The grandfather and potential candidate, Philip Gabbert, is 98 years old and suffers from advanced dementia.
"We could really go either way on this," said Bryce Gabbert of the decision. "He's in really rough shape and has very little quality of life these days. Common sense says he belongs in hospice, but with the way things are in Washington these days, he could really become a major power player. He can't really speak or think clearly anymore, but who are we to not give him the opportunity to run the country?"
With elected officials like Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, Diane Feinstein, and John Fetterman serving in high government positions, political parties have focused on recruiting the most aged, decrepit, and impaired candidates available to campaign. "The worse they are at being able to reason and communicate, the better," said Robbie McKean, who helps run Democratic political campaigns in the state. "If McConnell ends up resigning, there will be a battle for his seat, and who better to take that spot than an even older, more debilitated codger?"
At publishing time, the Gabbert family was still struggling with the decision, torn between doing what is best for Grandpa or doing what would be more likely to set up the family for several generations' worth of wealth built upon illegal bribes, insider stock trading, and campaign kickbacks.
[Hot Air] There is an age problem in Congress. Some incidents this week prove that maybe it’s time we talk about the aging of our elected officials.
The first point should be that people age differently. Some people are sharp as a tack at 80 years of age. Others are not so sharp at 70 years of age. Mental decline is different for everyone. Physical aging can be a problem, too, for politicians trying to keep working and holding on to their power.
This week we saw Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell freeze while speaking to reporters. Fortunately, he was surrounded by his colleagues, including Senator John Barrasso, a physician. who was standing right next to him. He was led off by Barrasso and then returned a little later to say he was fine. Still later, McConnell told reporters that the president called to check on him. McConnell made a joke and said he told the president he was sandbagged.
Clearly, he isn’t ok. I’m not a doctor, I just pretend to be one here to make a point. McConnell is 81-years- old. He’s been in office for decades. As sad as it makes me to say, he needs to retire. I think that fall he took at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Washington is having lasting effects. The fall lead to a concussion after hitting his head during the tumble. He also broke some ribs and was away from his office for nearly six weeks. Now there are questions about the senator’s health.
CNN is reporting that he fell in February in Helsinki. He was with a U.S. delegation there. He tripped and fell while getting out of a car on a snowy day. He was walking to meet the Finnish president. Days later, back in Washington, he fell at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.
#2
They’ll probably grandfather the current clown cast like the NHL did with their helmet rule. Feinstein will serve into democratic delirium while the rest of us geezers lose our chance.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/29/2023 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Non-Gov related testing labs.
Is there such a thing? With all the pharma and academia funded by the Gov I doubt you could disentangle that.
#6
No, no, no. Let the voters decide when an elected official is too old or otherwise incapacitated. Yes, the media conspires to hide it from the voters but they can't hide it forever. By now everybody knows that Feinstein is out of it. Mitch too. And Fetterman. The wonder is that so many people still think Biden is capable. That's some outstanding work by the msm, not to mention Dominion. We'll see it they can keep it going through 2024. I don't believe they can.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/29/2023 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Amendment? Not really. Congress can pass a law with an upper age restriction.
Only issue with that is they can void that law just as easily later and can't with an amendment.
#8
IIRC the requirements for POTUS, et al are specified (or not) in the Constitution. If you want to amend/restrict any of that shit it should require an Amendment. Others may know more
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/29/2023 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Frank, the Constitution only specifies a minimum age for President.
Personally, I am more in favor of term limits for congress critters. Two terms for Senators, six for representatives. If they can't learn their jobs in 12 years, they don't deserve it.
Also, the founding fathers did not really plan on politicians for life.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/29/2023 17:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Maybe, maybe, in the past, there were some who were good enough to serve long. Now, none of em, no way.
The only reason the Founders didn't enshrine term limits in the Constitution was that they didn't foresee the sorts of mountebank types that have come after them.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/29/2023 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
My guess is that the Founders had no concept someone (their era) could live long enough to be this corrupt
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/29/2023 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
BLUF:
[BLAZE] Hunter Biden is also taking money from China and Ukraine.
"You have Joe Biden’s son taking money from Ukraine where hostilities have broken out since he got in. We know his son received money from the dirty people in Ukraine. The government of Ukraine is the most corrupt in the world," Glenn continues.
And worst of all, Glenn believes everything these incompetent, corrupt politicians are doing is evil.
#2
Ukraine’s institutions are more corrupt than ours. We can know this by the fact that our corrupt politicians are fire-hosing our money into Ukraine where there is are no remains protections against money laundering. Joe had the last watchdog removed as a predicate to opening up the hydrant.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/29/2023 7:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Our media institutions that are no more then the propaganda arm of one party, our scientific community that ignores a couple hundred years of scientific methodologies and publishes junk, our medical community that engages in experiments on children with no moral concern than the egregious practices of war criminals, our education establishment that only wants to indoctrinate not teach basics. The Ukranians never had far to fall, ours have with just as much consequences.
BLUF:
[PJ] There appears to be bipartisan interest in getting more transparency from the executive branch about UAPs, though there was some skepticism as well. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) questioned how aliens with technology advanced enough to make it to Earth from billions of miles away could be "incompetent" enough to crash here.
It’s a fair point.
And, true to form, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana responded to the hearings in a way only he could, in a campaign video.
"In Washington, D.C., common sense is illegal. I swear to God and all the angels that’s true. You know, I remember when the kitchen table issues mattered more than pronouns, when boys weren’t allowed to compete in girls’ sports, when truth mattered a lot more than political correctness," he said, "Maybe that’s why the aliens won’t talk to us."
Watch the entire video below, and pay close attention to the end.
[American Greatness] In testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Thursday, a doctor from the University of Washington said that Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates subjected Americans "to the humiliations of forced medical treatments," were "scientifically inconsistent and illogical," and "an insult to our American foundation of freedom."
Dr. Kevin Bardosh, an affiliate assistant professor, cited an academic paper he published in the BMJ in March of 2023 on COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults which found vaccine mandates on college campuses to be inappropriate and unethical because it likely resulted in a net harm to young people.
"In our paper, we combined empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis," Bardosh explained. "We estimated that to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization over a 6-month period, between 31,000—42,000 young adults aged 18—29 years would have to receive a third mRNA vaccine," he continued. "But this would mean that for each hospitalization prevented with these booster mandates, at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines would occur, including 1-5 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalization)."
Three other witnesses testified before the Committee hearing titled "Examining the Science and Impact of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates," including Danielle Runyan, the Senior Counsel for First Liberty, a legal organization that is representing many U.S. service members who lawfully objected to the required injections, and Allison Williams, a sports reporter who was fired from ESPN after 10 years of employment because she refused to get the jab. Williams is now a reporter for Fox Sports.
[NationalPulse] One in 35 people who received the COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccinations had vaccine-associated myocardial injury, according to a peer-reviewed, industry-independent study from the University of Basel.
The study, which is due to be published in the highly accredited open-access journal of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, aimed to identify the incidence rate and symptoms of myocardial injury — inflammation of the heart muscle — after mRNA booster vaccinations.
The study found that myocardial vaccine-associated injury was "much more common than previously thought," occurring in one out of every 35 people — around 2.8 percent. The symptoms were found to be mostly mild and transient.
These results were broken down further, finding myocardial injury "significantly more often" in women than men, with a median age of 46 years old. Women developed symptoms at a rate of 3.7 percent, whereas men developed symptoms at 0.8 percent. This may be explained by the "higher vaccine dose per body weight or myocardial mass in women and therefore dose-dependent toxic effects," the study suggests.
"If regulators around the world don’t take notice of the information... then they are at best, in my view negligent, at worst they don’t wanna think about it," states Dr. John Campbell, who adds:
"This is a range of adverse reaction that is off the scale in healthcare: off the scale."
How does this compare to other vaccines that got approved? Without hard numbers I cannot judge whether or howmuch I should be appalled.
Posted by: The Walking Unvaxed ||
07/29/2023 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
E-Mail||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Women developed symptoms at a rate of 3.7 percent, whereas men developed symptoms at 0.8 percent.
Women hit hardest. Looks like they haven't examined children, who didn't even need the jab, yet.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[ChildrensHealthDefense] When will we get to the actual guilty in this perpetually lied about Bio-Weapons Lab developed and released Virus Pandemic?
[BEE] WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas was summoned to Capitol Hill today to give testimony before a congressional committee that he is not, in fact, bald. Mayorkas stood by his previous claims that he is not bald even after photographic and video evidence otherwise was made public.
[BEE] LOUISVILLE, KY — A local family was faced with a difficult decision this week regarding whether to place their beloved grandpa in hospice care or have him announce a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat. The grandfather and potential candidate, Philip Gabbert, is 98 years old and suffers from advanced dementia.
