There was a bit of a kerfuffle in Indonesia in June this year. A philanthropist wanted to hand out free ivermectin, but was closed down by the Indonesian Government.
Covid cases continued rising, and government policy on ivermectin flipped to approval on 15th July. Then what happened? The media have been deathly quiet on the subject: the Indonesians have almost wiped covid out in their country.
Indonesian covid cases, from March 2020 to 19th October, 2021
Approval for ivermectin was given on 15th July. Daily cases peaked three days later at 50,039. They started falling precipitously to a low of 924 on 19th October. Indonesia has a population of 277 million people.
By comparison Victoria* on 19th October 2021 had 1,749 new cases of covid, almost twice the total for all of Indonesia. Victoria endured interminable lockdowns, coercive vaccination campaigns, riots, and much public disaffection to achieve that result.
What does this mean? It means that Australia could end its covid problem anytime it wanted to at hardly any expense at all. Our government would be aware of what the Indonesians have achieved. It also means that any covid deaths from here on are state-sanctioned murder. Anybody dead or crippled due to the vaccines is not an unfortunate, random side effect, but something done at the behest of the Australian Government, not unwittingly.
Beyond the toll in human lives and suffering, all the cost and expense of dealing with this disease is avoidable. Help the Australian Government change its mind, as the Indonesian Government did. If your member of Federal Parliament won’t see reason, he is part of the problem, including the state-sanctioned murder aspect. Members of parliament see reason more readily if their seat is threatened.
* Victoria has a population of 6.5 million people.
India, and now Indonesia, did it with invermectin.
Australia is vying with a number of western countries for the “stupidest ruling class” award.
The general died of COVID after, as all the elite-simping people writing the news reports assured us, he had been vaccinated multiple times. They had to get that in — they had to reassure the faithful that the general was no heretic despite his sad end.
His passing was noted exactly as one would expect for a mandarin of the elite. The mainstream hailed him; the rebel media pointed out his faults. Predictably, his obituaries put great store in the fact that he was “the first black” whatever, reducing his achievements — and he did have achievements — to a mere accident of birth. …
Powell became a reliably Democrat-voting Republican, the kind CNN would wheel out every election cycle to explain how actual Republicans are terrible.
He was beloved in Washington as one of the wisemen because of this; it certainly helped wash off some of the stink of being caught up in the mustard gas fraud. Grimly, at the end, his passing exemplified the worst of the people he thought were the best and enjoyed being one of, with focus on his race and his taking of the vaxx sacrament and a soft-pedaling of his flaws.
Like many luminaries of the Boomer establishment, Powell provided a certain gravity and dignity to an elite rapidly filling up with young, woke, unaccomplished hacks. Though he was firmly on the side of the woke pronoun people by the end, he was not one of them. He picked up a rifle; they picked a gender. Powell was a serious man who found himself allied with unserious people. …
He never gave any sense that he understood the forces that pushed Trump into the White House, and why would he? He was a four-star general, then the Secretary of State. These are potentates, and their encounters with the plebs are both rare and uncomfortable. He never had to make a payroll, never worried about the next mortgage payment. He entered the Army and never left the warm embrace of the establishment, whether as a soldier and diplomat in the government or in the quasi-governmental world that followed. So, it was no shock that the rise of Trump was a shock to him.
Powell gave no indication that he had any sense of the betrayals normal Americans felt, of the security stripped from them both economically and culturally by the policies of people like him. After all, the target of their populist anger was the insular ruling caste that he was a huge part of. Instead, it was easier for him to ascribe the rejection of people like him to their knuckle dragging ignorance or, more darkly, their racism.
People in the ruling class don’t even recognize there is a ruling class. Though, if pushed, they will admit there are many deplorables — who aren’t at all like them.
Somewhat related: People in the media don’t admit they are biased, but:
Planeloads of underage migrants are being flown secretly into suburban New York in an effort by President Biden’s administration to quietly resettle them across the region, The Post has learned.
The charter flights originate in Texas, where the ongoing border crisis has overwhelmed local immigration officials, and have been underway since at least August, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Last week, The Post saw two planes land at the Westchester County Airport, where most of the passengers who got off appeared to be children and teens, with a small portion appearing to be men in their 20s.
Westchester County cops stood by as the passengers — whose flights arrived at 10:49 p.m. Wednesday and 9:52 p.m. Friday — got off and piled into buses.
Some of them were later seen meeting up with relatives or sponsors in New Jersey, or being dropped off at a residential facility on Long Island.
A Post analysis of online flight-tracking data suggests that around 2,000 of the underage migrants have arrived at the airport outside White Plains on 21 flights since Aug. 8.
Records show some of the planes touched down between midnight and 6:30 a.m. — when a voluntary curfew is in effect — with two arriving from Houston at 2:13 a.m. and 4:29 a.m. on Aug. 20.
The clandestine nature of the operation raises questions about how the White House is dealing with a recent surge in unaccompanied minors.
The most recent figures from US Customs and Border Protection show that just during July and August, 37,805 unaccompanied minors were caught entering the US from Mexico — sometimes after being abandoned by professional smugglers known as “coyotes.”
Video shows some children dropped over the border wall or abandoned in remote areas. …
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis expressed outrage at The Post’s findings, with a spokeswoman saying: “If the Biden Administration is so confident that their open-border policy is good for our country, why the secrecy?”
“Why is the Biden Administration refusing to share even the most basic information about illegal alien resettlement in communities throughout our state and the entire country?” spokeswoman Christina Pushaw said. …
Former Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, a Republican candidate for governor, said … “The Biden administration is systematically spreading the southern border crisis to communities all around the country, often shrouded in secrecy and under the cloak of darkness.”
You know it must be good for you if they keep it secret 😉
Not a day goes by without the uncritical mainstream media running yet another Climate Industrial Complex propaganda piece about a member of the Royal Family saying or doing something ‘green’ in the run-up to COP26. …
But I don’t think the public are buying this crap. When you look at the reader comments on these stories they are invariably negative. Here, for example, are some of the ones below the Mail‘s story about Prince Charles and his brainwashed green grandson George.
Brainwashing kids is never a good idea
Well he shouldn’t be, he should be playing with cars and planes and lego etc. He’s a baby let him enjoy his childhood, stop with all this ludicrous green fakery, the world will still be turning even when George is but dust.
Did anyone tell Prince George that his uncle travels by private jet to preach about climate change?
The [Royal Family] has really gone off the rails since Prince Philip has departed. Talk about leaping headlong into a political minefield.
That last point is well made. The Queen and her late consort Prince Philip are the last generation of Royals to have kept any kind of perspective on environmental issues.
Prince Philip, certainly, was an ardent climate sceptic who often found himself at loggerheads with his drippy, vegetable-hugging son Charles. …
The Queen, I suspect, may well share her late husband’s scepticism. And even if she doesn’t, she is fully aware of the dangers of publicly endorsing so political a cause, which is why she treads so very cautiously on the issue.
Which is what made it so particularly disgusting when the Mail tried to insinuate last week that the Queen was fully on board with the green agenda. It ran a tendentious story headlined ‘Queen’s green fury: Monarch says she is ‘irritated’ by world leaders who ‘talk but don’t DO’ in rare public intervention ahead of climate change summit…’
It went on to claim:
Remarks are a rare public insight into the politically neutral — and tight-lipped — monarch’s personal views
I was almost taken in by this drivel myself. Indeed, I dashed off a piece saying how disappointed I was with Her Maj for breaking the rule that, even by accident, the reigning monarch does not express views that might alienate half her subjects.
But actually, the piece’s claims were threadbare indeed. Here is what the Queen had been overheard saying at the opening of the Welsh parliament.
‘Extraordinary isn’t it… I’ve been hearing all about Cop… still don’t know who is coming… no idea.
‘We only know about people who are not coming… It’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.’
These are not the words of someone frustrated that more isn’t being done to ‘combat’ climate change. They’re the words of an irritated, upper class host who is irked that her guests haven’t RSVP-ed her party invitation.
To suggest otherwise is to impose an interpretation on the Queen’s words they simply cannot bear. Clearly, even though she is speaking in private — or thinks she is — to officials at an event, the Queen is resolutely steering away from controversy. …
But the next royal generation is too woke:
For quite a few of us, definitely me included, the passing of the Queen will bring to an end any loyalty we may feel towards the monarchy.
The kind of eco-fascist world view being championed by World Economic Forum regular Prince Charles, and apparently destined to be inherited both by his sons and grandson, has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the royal family’s so-called ‘subjects.’
Once the Queen goes, we’ll be better off if these jet-setting, eco-evangelical hypocrites fly off to some remote island with a bunker inside a volcano and leave us all well alone.
If monarchy is rule by one, oligarchy rule by the few, and democracy rule by the many, a bureaucracy might be said to be rule by no one.
Perhaps no recent example better encapsulates the above observation by political philosopher Hannah Arendt than Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg’s largely unnoticed absence amid America’s worst supply-chain meltdown in living memory.
Was Buttigieg ill? Fanatically dedicated to working behind the scenes? Nope! He’d simply punched out, like taking a personal day except for two months, in order to help husband Chasten recover from the traumas of childbirth.
This revelation turned into a predictable, rather lame dispute between Red Team and Blue Team over whether the Butt Man was neglecting his duties. Tucker Carlson ribbed Buttigieg for taking time to “learn breastfeeding”; the rich gay surrogate dad sniped back by implying that Carlson, a man with a wife and four grown children, was alienated from the act of parenthood. …
This illustrates a dominant feature of modern politics and the ruling class that the media, obviously, fail to mention:
Buttigieg could step away from his job permanently and it likely wouldn’t make any difference. In fact, so could the rest of the Cabinet, pretty much all of Congress, and the president too …
Far from “slacking off” or irresponsibly stepping away from a senior U.S. government post, Pete Buttigieg has actually revealed the true nature of governance in America’s late-stage crumbling “democracy”: It’s a government where the presence of political appointees is entirely unnecessary.
The United States federal government is a behemoth with more than two million civilian employees, plus more than 1.3 million active-duty military personnel. Sitting atop the vast edifice are a mere 4,000 political appointees, about 1,300 of which require Senate confirmation.
While in an ideal world these political appointees would all be knowledgeable experts who are fitting choices for senior positions, in reality of course the opposite is often the case. …
The truth, of course, is that political appointments are handed out for all kinds of other reasons: To reward a political ally, to heal a schism, to allow younger party leaders to raise their profile. But above all, political appointees are there to exert control.
The purpose of political appointees isn’t to act as bureaucrats and administrators. Amazingly enough, the point of a political appointee is politics: They are there to exercise political control over the career bureaucracy so that it doesn’t become an unelected, all-powerful fourth branch of government.
The left and the bureaucracy are now joined at the hip:
This reality explains why Secretary Buttigieg could easily take three more years of paternity leave if he feels like it.
Through a process of convergent evolution dating back decades, the Democratic Party and the federal bureaucracy have become ideologically indistinguishable.
Why does Pete Buttigieg need to go into work at all? He knows with absolute certainty that the senior leadership of the Department of Transportation are ideological progressives. He knows that they will mindlessly receive any mental software update that is put out by the progressive left. He knows that, if the Democratic Congress passes any bill involving the Department of Transportation, the career appointees will execute it without complaint. …
This evolution is not simply a matter of the Democratic Party “taking over” the Washington bureaucracy. The arrangement actually goes both ways. The bureaucracy is certainly deeply loyal to progressive priorities like transgender rights or rooting out “racism.” But in turn, the Democratic Party has tethered itself inseparably to the values of the DC bureaucrat class.
Among other things, this includes the cult of credential-collecting and meaningless “expertise,” the revolving door between government and senior corporate posts, and the military-industrial-diplomatic complex that obsessively spreads “freedom” and “democracy” to unwilling foreign lands. …
The non-left, when elected, will always be fighting the bureaucracy — so never get anything done, and the west ratchets left:
Crucially, the same forces that let the Democratic Party leave the bureaucracy on autopilot mean that a Republican administration can never expect the same sort of cooperation.
From the moment President Trump took office, a huge proportion of the bureaucracy switched into full #Resist mode. This wasn’t centrally planned — it didn’t require orders from Nancy Pelosi or collusion between thousands of different actors. Instead, it took place automatically and implicitly: bureaucrats could act knowing right away that others would act in concert with them. And at the time, Washington’s official organs gloated about it. …
In effect, the monolithic Democratic ideology of the American bureaucracy means that, no matter how decisively it wins an election, any Republican presidency (or for that matter, any non-establishment presidency regardless of party) will always be a case of divided government. Not only that, but it will be a deeply asymmetric divided government, where a few thousand political appointees do battle with entrenched, hostile bureaucrats who are both far more numerous and far more experienced using the levers of policy and power.
This isn’t just a bottleneck to effective governance, but also an existential problem for democracy itself. Because in any government where the bureaucracy calls the shots, regardless of who holds power above them, elections become meaningless. The American presidency will be like the Imperial title under the shoguns, holding immense prestige but no power.
To say the least, the next Republican president cannot afford Cabinet secretaries who take two months off to raise adopted infants. They need a Day One strategy that assumes the bureaucracy will be hostile and will needed to be crushed. They will need a plan that takes no prisoners and topples every obstacle the bureaucratic deep state attempts to throw up.
It’s not this bad in Australia, yet, but we’re working on it.
I voted Liberal in 2013 because they promised me Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. My vote was rewarded with Malcolm Turnbull.
I voted Liberal in 2019 because they promised to reject Labor’s climate madness. My vote is now being rewarded with a commitment to net-zero emissions. …
The majority of the voting public didn’t buy the climate alarmists’ Chicken Little routine at the last election, and nothing has happened since then to change our minds.
What happened to the Scott Morrison who, in 2017, proudly held up a lump of coal in Parliament and dared those on the other side of the House to not be afraid?
What happened to the Scott Morrison who, just two years ago, insisted “you can’t run a strong economy in Australia on a 45% emissions reduction target”?
Why is he suddenly insisting on net-zero nonsense to make net-zero difference to a problem we are not certain exists by means that do not yet exist at a cost no one can quantify? …
Ah, but a net-zero commitment was “important for Australia’s standing in the international community”, he argued yesterday. …
It seems that Morrison’s hobnobbing on the international stage has gone to his head. Rather than working for Australia and Australians, he is determined to gain approval from weak woke Western leaders by following their un-costed policies in search of an unachievable target.
It’s amazing what some people will do to ingratiate themselves with the celebrity/elite/entitled class.
The PM who sold himself as the champion of Quiet Australians is now prepared to sell them out just to get on the right side of Sleepy Joe, Chuckles Harris, Bonkers Boris, Crazy Charles and the teenage Goblin of Doom.
And yet, global cooling has begun. By 2030 — or maybe 2040 with sufficient cheating with thermometers — all this will seem like madness.
Recently on the America Moment podcast, Michael Anton named names regarding Conservatism, Inc. …
Now I’ll name names. If you’re at National Review, AEI or Heritage Foundation, your job is to pretend to oppose but really support; your whole business model as staff and management collapses if you don’t do that.
It’s an open question why the donors donate to these places. I actually believe they’re deceiving their donors for the most part; that is I’d like to believe most donors to Conservatism, Inc. (NRO, AEI, Heritage) are writing checks because they believe these guys are fighting bad leftists, socialists, Communists, America-haters, critical race theory. They’re standing athwart yelling ‘Stop!’ They really think this.
They don’t think, ‘I’m writing this check so that Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnoru, Jonah Goldberg and other fat useless grifters can have six-figure jobs to do nothing but sell out my country and pretend that they’re saving it.’ I don’t think they’re doing that, but to be completely clear, that’s what they’re doing.
There’s a lot to unpack just in that one 60-second statement, but Anton is absolutely correct: The overwhelming majority of “conservative” donors, knowingly or unknowingly, are getting played by Conservatism, Inc., which is really about 90 percent of the so-called “conservative” think tanks in D.C. but, quite frankly, it happens even in the smaller ones across the country. …
So little action:
Nice buildings, yes. Six and seven-figure salaries, yes. Self-validating echo chamber meetings? Yes. But work that impacts, truly impacts the direction this country is going in a positive way? Not at all; their work is barely noticeable, like cow flatulence on a windy day. …
Now these groups like AEI and Heritage will claim they’re fighting to “conserve this great country,” that they’re fighting to “save ‘Merica.” No they’re not. They’re fighting to conserve their sinecures; honestly, they’re like the white washed tombs from Scripture. Bright and shiny on the outside but filled on the inside with the dry and dusty bones of tired, worn out, and ineffective ideas and approaches.
Yet Conservatism, Inc. continues on because there is no market demand from the donors to change: The overwhelming number of donors still need to wake up and realize they can’t buy their way out of this mess. They have to pay attention because as things stand, they are part of the problem. By continuing to “invest” in ineffective work, there are opportunity costs that make the road back that much harder for all of us to pass. …
If, as Anton says, donors think they’re funding these entities to actually fight the leftists, the question should be very simple: proof please of your work. Strongly worded statements and white papers don’t count, for the record. Show us the action items. …
Conservative donors need to become far more sophisticated. I made this point recently: George Soros dropped $980,000 into the Commonwealth’s attorney race here in Loudoun County, Virginia in 2019. Most conservative donors don’t even know the position exists. …
So many wasted resources:
Of course one of the fundamental problems is that these entities, even if they wanted to do hard, effective work, are not set up, nor staffed by people who can even do any effective work in these areas. It continues to be mind-blowing how people who were clearly successful in the private sector (in order to have the funds to contribute) are so easily taken. And I can assure you, they continue to be taken as suckers.
Between 2009-2019, Heritage Foundation raised nearly a billion dollars, roughly $973,000,000 million. …
So much losing:
Do you think that the “Conservative Movement” as currently constructed, can actually defeat the Left and save this country? I’ll give you a hint: The answer is no. As in, not even close.
Trump and the Tea Party, on the other hand, were entirely different.
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram have all confirmed they have banned a young peasant child from their social networks after he pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
The brouhaha started after God-Emperor Joseph I showed off his new wardrobe at a press conference this morning. The press reported his fashion was “impeccable” and that he looked like an “even hotter George Clooney,” but some far-right extremists said that he was actually naked. …
[The boy] made his case for the emperor actually being completely naked on his Parler account, prompting Amazon to immediately take down all of Parler. The IRS is also looking into his accounts …
If we don’t solve the Presidential Election Fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.
Donald Trump finally got the attention of Republican leaders the other day when he said that unless they addressed the 2020 election shenanigans, his supporters will not bother to vote in upcoming elections.
This got the usual suspects out to denounce him as a Hitler plotting to do Hitler things. Regime media was flooded with boilerplate articles about how there was no evidence to support his claims. Some Republicans were sent out to denounce him for his dangerous rhetoric.
This little bit of drama is interesting in that it suggests that some portion of the electorate is making the next logical step. If you cannot get what you want at the ballot box, either because the vote is rigged or the choices are false, then why vote? If those conditions are true, then voting becomes self-sabotage. When you vote, you are endorsing the process and its results. Voting in a rigged election is, in effect, validating the rigged process and the people rigging it.
Popular entertainment is full of plots where the star is faced with two bad choices and refuses to accept them. Instead, he creates a third choice to save the day. Every business school trains students on how to think beyond the choices on offer. “Thinking outside the box” is considered to be the hallmark of the modern entrepreneur. People like Elon Musk are celebrated because they allegedly refuse to accept the conventional answer.
Only in politics is it that no one is ever allowed to question the options put forward by the two political parties each election. This exception to the rule of thinking outside the box is necessary because the system requires it. For example, if “none of the above” was an option in most elections, that would often be the winner. …
Not voting seems like a sure way to lose by even more. But might it be useful in the long run?
What changes is public perception of politics. This system requires the broad public to think voting matters. If they come to see that voting is just ceremonial, a play put on to keep them pacified, then the system cracks. At the minimum, it brings the system to crisis.
There are no easy answers to generational problems, but normalizing the idea of a boycott helps create a morality outside the prevailing orthodoxy. If 20% of people think that boycotting the system is the moral choice, they are in effect rejecting the morality of the established order. It is a peaceful revolt. Once people get used to revolting in their minds, they can revolt against the system. Normalizing the revolt of the mind is a prerequisite for any challenge to the prevailing order.
Fixing the way votes are cast and counted seems like a faster solution. At the rate western civilization is being trashed and the traditional American population is being replaced, there is no time to lose.
All school boards in Virginia were required to have adopted the model policies by the start of the current school year. …
The most pernicious aspect of the model policies is the alarming mandate that schools not tell parents if their son or daughter has adopted a new gender at school …
The policies even suggest teachers use a child’s birth name with parents but a name of the opposite sex at school. …
Few people agree with the lie pushed by the media and corporate America that one can change one’s sex. When it’s one’s own child who might be affected as school districts actively work to delude you, the danger becomes much more concrete. One hardly needs to be a Christian or a conservative to find the prospect horrifying.
Unfortunately, this scenario is also far from some distant possibility. Adolescents have seen a ten-fold increase in gender dysphoria in the last decade.
Whose children are they anyway, comrade? You didn’t build them.
[CNN] host Brian Stelter made the mistake of allowing former NYT Editor Bari Weiss on air to discuss examples of why the world has gone mad. …
His second mistake was asking her to elaborate on what she means when she says “You know the world has gone mad when…”
“Where can I start? Well, when you have the chief reporter on the beat of COVID for The New York Times talking about how questioning or pursuing the question of the lab leak is racist, the world has gone mad.
When you’re not able to say out loud and in public there are differences between men and women, the world has gone mad.
When we’re not allowed to acknowledge that rioting is rioting and it is bad and that silence is not violence, but violence is violence, the world has gone mad,” Weiss said.
“When you’re not able to say the Hunter Biden laptop is a story worth pursuing, the world has gone mad.
When, in the name of progress, young school children, as young as kindergarten, are being separated in public schools because of their race, and that is called progress instead of segregation, the world has gone mad. There are dozens of examples.”
Stelter’s third and final mistake was asking Weiss “who” is to blame?
“People that work at networks like, frankly, like the one I’m speaking on right now, who try and claim that it was racist to investigate the lab leak theory,” Weiss shot back, adding later that CNN and the MSM’s actions were “disinformation by omission.”
Watching Stelter’s face alone is worth the price of admission.
CNN accidentally let someone tell the truth on air…
I can no longer remain silent. I can no longer silently watch what has been going on for a year and a half now within my organization, a public service broadcaster.
Things like “balance”, “social cohesion” and “diversity” in reporting are principles embedded in the statutes and media state contracts. Today, the exact opposite is happening….
Scientists and experts who were respected and esteemed before Covid, who were given space in public discourse, are suddenly labelled cranks, tinfoil hat wearers or Covidiots. …
Instead of an open exchange of opinions, a “scientific consensus” was proclaimed, that must be defended. Anyone who doubts this and demands a multidimensional perspective on the pandemic, will reap indignation and scorn. …
For a few months, I have been venturing out onto the ice, making some critical remarks here and there in conferences. This is often followed by a shocked silence, sometimes a “thank you for pointing it out” and every so often a lecture on why it is not true. This has never resulted in any reporting.
The result of one and a half years of Covid-19 is an unparalleled division in society. Public service broadcasting has played a major role in this. It is increasingly failing in its responsibility to build bridges between the camps and to promote exchange.
It is often argued that the critics are a small, negligible minority, which, for reasons of proportionality, cannot be accommodated to any great extent. This argument should have been retired at least with the Swiss referendum on Covid-19 measures. Despite the lack of free exchange of opinions in mass media in that country too, the votes cast went only 60:40 in favour of the government. With a proportion of 40%, can you talk about a small minority? It also turned out that the Swiss Government had tied Covid-related financial support to the vote, which might have influenced some to tick “Yes” on the ballot. …
Quashing the ivermectin story:
For months now, it has been clear that effective and cheap treatments do exist for Covid-19, but their use is not allowed. The data on this is unequivocal. But the pseudoscientific disinformation campaigns against these medications are indicative of the state of medicine today. …
In the spring, the catastrophic situation in India caused by the spread of the Delta variant was widely reported in the media (then still referred to as the Indian variant). But the fact that India rather quickly brought the situation under control, and that the use of Ivermectin in large states such as Uttar Pradesh had a decisive role in this, was not deemed newsworthy. …
From the outset, the message given in public discourse was that vaccination was the only way out. The WHO even went so far as to change the definition of “herd immunity”, implying that it can only be achieved by vaccination and no longer by previous infection, as was previously the case.
What if the road chosen is a dead end? …
Society is controlled by vaccination status. Why?
Society is being divided into two classes. Vaccinated people regain their freedom … whereas unvaccinated people … must undergo tests, and pay for them out of their pocket, and will no longer receive sick pay if quarantined. Moreover, employment bans and dismissals on the grounds of vaccination status are no longer out of the question, and health insurance funds may impose less favourable rates on the unvaccinated in the future.
Why this pressure on unvaccinated people? This has no foundation in science and is damaging to our society. …
It is a little discussed fact that natural infection allows a person to develop clearly stronger immunity. “Ultrapotent antibodies” or ”super immunity” have been found in people who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the last year. These antibodies react against more than 20 different mutations of the virus and remain for longer than antibodies acquired via vaccination. …
The way out of the pandemic touted by our politicians and the media turns out to be a permanent vaccine subscription. Scientists advocating a different Covid approach are not able to reach out via public service media … Instead …. experts were sought out to discredit [them]. …
The most vocal critics must count on house searches, prosecution, account suspensions, transfers or dismissal, or even referral to psychiatric care. …
In the United States, it is already being discussed whether criticising science should be labelled a hate crime. The Rockefeller Foundation has announced a grant of 13.5 million dollars to censor misinformation in the health field. …
What is happening now is no honest fight against “fake news”. Rather, we are left with the impression that any information, evidence, or discussion deviating from the official narrative is suppressed. …
The Gates and Rockefeller Foundations drafted and financed the WHO guidelines for digital vaccine passes. These passes are now being rolled out everywhere. Only with these passes will public life be possible –- whether you want to take the tram, have a coffee or get medical treatment.
An example from France shows that this digital pass will stay even after the pandemic ends. MP Emanuelle Ménard demanded the following addition to the legal text: The digital vaccine pass shall end when the virus spread no longer presents a level of danger which justifies its use. Her proposed amendment was rejected. Thus we are but a small step away from global population control or even a surveillance state via projects such as ID2020. …
For a long time, I could say with pride and joy that I work in public service broadcasting. ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio have generated outstanding research, formats, and content. The quality standards are extremely high and thousands of staff members are doing great work despite increasing cost pressure and savings targets.
But with Covid-19, something has gone wrong. Suddenly, I have become aware of tunnel vision, blinkers and a supposed consensus which is no longer questioned.
Actually it’s been wrong for a while, perhaps starting with climate change 15 years ago.
Writing this, I feel like a heretic — someone who commits high treason and must reckon with being punished. Maybe this is not the case. Maybe I am not actually risking my job, and maybe freedom of opinion and pluralism are not under threat. I really hope so and I look forward to constructive exchange with my colleagues.
You have contradicted the narrative. You will never work again with your past employer, or in any other industry where you can influence others. Welcome to the outside.
At the very moment that Australia’s political class is gripped by a dramatic shift in climate-change ambition ahead of the Glasgow summit, the world has been seized by a countervailing reality.
Global energy markets are in chaos and the divisions between the developed and developing world have never been more stark.
Confirmation on Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend the UN Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, underlines a bigger point. India, too, is not interested in the push to curtail the use of fossil fuels. …
In Europe, dumbstruck by a lack of wind and high prices for gas because of post-pandemic demand in Asia and a geopolitical squeeze by Russia, policymakers are looking for answers. …
The dilemma is doubly embarrassing because it is all happening in the weeks leading into the Glasgow climate summit, which is supposed to be the gathering at which fossil fuels are consigned to history. …
Polls say even most westerners aren’t buying the propaganda:
A YouGov poll this week showed most Australians wanted the government to act on climate change but 43 per cent of respondents said they were not prepared to pay extra on their power bill. A further 28 per cent were unwilling to pay more than $25 a month. …
The findings are consistent with international polls. Two-thirds of those surveyed in the US were opposed to an additional payment of $120 a year on their electricity bill….
Did you vote for this?
But the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 assumes a carbon price of $US75 a tonne of CO2 in 2025, which implies a cost for consumers of more than $1000 a year.
In Britain, green levies already account for about a quarter of energy bills. The push now is to put additional burden on to gas, used to heat houses, or straight to consolidated revenue.
There is plenty of evidence that consumers have a breaking point; the French yellow shirts rebellion is one example.
The Economist magazine warned last month that high-cost policies could lead to a Brexit-style popular revolt. “Brexit transformed Britain by tapping into ordinary people’s resentment of distant elites, and anti-greenery could do the same,” it said. “Environmentalism is driven by populists’ two big bogeymen, scientific experts and multilateral institutions. In the public mind, greenery is coming to mean global confabs that produce yet more directives, and protesters who block city centres and motorways.”
The ruling class is having its way with us anyway:
But big business and financial markets have seized on a transition they believe is paved with gold, good intentions and power. Nay-sayers are simply in the way. Investment funds are calling the shots, warning there will be no money for countries that do not co-operate, and business is betting big on technologies of the future, such as hydrogen and electric vehicles, and asking government to help. …
It’s as if the carbon dioxide theory of global warming is a Chinese plot. It’s not, but they have taken advantage of it so much better than our leaders:
Jun Arima of the University of Tokyo … says Chinese companies are the principal beneficiaries of the green agenda, holding 70 per cent of the global solar market and representing seven out of the 10 largest wind turbine manufacturers.
He says the trend towards electric vehicles is particularly advantageous for China, sweeping away decades of accumulated technological advantage in internal-combustion engines of its international competitors and providing a shortcut to automobile power status.
While dependence on Middle Eastern oil has long been the Achilles heel of global energy security, a shift towards renewables, battery storage and EVs could cause a different risk, namely growing dependence on China for fundamental strategic minerals and the high-value components manufactured from them.
Arima says low-carbon policies in the West will reduce the cost of fossil fuels to China while increasing energy costs in the West, delivering competitive advantage to China.
China pretends it will reduce emissions someday, while building ever more coal plants and running its industry on cheap energy. Meanwhile, the Chinese cheat on carbon trading, soon to be re-introduced. As Greg Sheridan articulates it:
International trading in carbon offsets is extremely ropy, often corrupt and based on hypotheticals piled on fictions. Last time this was tried, Western nations were paying huge amounts of money to Chinese factories not to do things they only ever said they were going to do in order to attract carbon offsets sales.
All for a theory that greatly exaggerates the influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As it happens global warming is mainly caused by the Sun, and seems to have peaked in late 2016. World leaders, meet global cooling. Shame they never did any due diligence on the carbon dioxide theory. The next decade ought to be interesting.
Jim Lee, chief creative officer and publisher of DC, announced on Saturday during the virtual fan event DC Fandome that the Man of Steel’s motto will be “evolving” from the well-known mantra that he fights for “Truth, Justice and the American Way.”
Superman’s new “mission statement”: “Truth, Justice and a Better Tomorrow.”
Ron DeSantis … announced at the end of last month that Australia was “not a free country.” This was surprising news — most of all to Australians.
DeSantis: “In Australia right now, after a year and a half, they’re still enforcing lockdowns by the military…Is Australia freer than communist China right now?…The fact that’s even a question tells you something has gone dramatically off the rails.”pic.twitter.com/YKQ5yAwg4K
We have mostly spent pandemic lockdowns alternating between boredom, frustration, wine, a lot of Netflix and trying to locate our trousers before Zoom meetings. Recently, we’ve also become aware of a disturbing myth that appears to be enthusiastically fostered on the American right: Our experience of the pandemic, apparently, has been that of a violent police state. We must have been too busy taking out the bins to notice.
Last week, the myth of our enslavement propelled aspirational allies into the streets. In the United States, Poland and Britain, distinctly non-Australian protesters assembled outside Australian diplomatic missions, denouncing the country’s decline into thuggish autocracy. A #SaveAustralia hashtag trended.
If Australians on Twitter were confused about what they required saving from — the sunshine? free health care? low Covid deaths? — it was perhaps because they weren’t visiting the dark corners of the internet where the myth has taken form. There, propaganda that depicts Australia as a blasted hellscape is being generated and shared.
Confected for an American audience, it seems to be part of an international right-wing campaign to recruit those frustrated by lockdowns, unsure of vaccines and animated by appeals to personal liberty. Australians, trying to get their kids to bed before bingeing on “Ted Lasso,” have been enlisted as unwitting props in an American culture war.
For months, I and other local disinformation researchers have watched the seeds of this campaign being spread across digital platforms.
Cam Smith, a public broadcaster and independent researcher who tracks the far right, noticed videos claiming to show recent acts of brutal police violence against hapless citizens “just pinging around, devoid of context” across anti-vax and anti-lockdown channels. But the footage, Mr. Smith discovered, was re-edited recordings of incidents that took place in the country 12 months earlier, some from a provocation campaign by anti-maskers to defy restrictions and initiate confrontations with police officers.
In the Facebook groups I monitor, it’s the same thing. Right-wing American influencers with millions of followers share videos in which Australian anti-maskers stage disruptions in shops or start fights with the police. Craftily edited, the videos are made to tell stories of innocent citizens brutalized by violent state overreach.
That’s bad enough. But the malign spread of foreign influence goes beyond the internet. In July, anti-lockdown protests took place across Australia, attracting crowds in Sydney and Melbourne. Yet this was no homegrown uprising: Data analysts found the protests had been coordinated by a central group of organizers based in Germany and Britain.
These anti-lockdown protests, never attended by more than a few thousand people, are small by Australian standards. And unlike Americans, Australians are not politically inclined to demands for liberty and choice as much as we are for fairness and solidarity. (The name of the national anthem is “Advance Australia Fair.”) As Australia’s First Nations people knew and settler-colonial Australians learned on arrival, individualism is far less useful than collaboration on a continent where everything from the weather to the insects is trying to kill you, all the time.
Even as some lockdown restrictions ease, Australians continue to comply with public health orders, which even now enjoy overwhelming public support. But where lockdowns remain, far-right activists have seized a rare chance to march on empty streets. …
Even amid the global economic disruption, Australia’s wheels of free enterprise have managed to find new ways to spin, for good or ill. Free and fair elections have continued to take place. …
Australia’s lockdowns, masks and social distancing have kept total nationwide deaths from the virus under 1,500. With its slightly smaller population, Florida — over which Governor DeSantis presides — has lost 57,000 already. It’s that cold reality the propaganda, lurid and outlandish and ridiculous, seeks to banish. But it can’t.
Political correctness is developing on the right, sadly. This is an example.
It suits some of the US right to project their fears of the developing tyranny in the US onto Australia, a country they know is like theirs — but about which they otherwise don’t know enough to realize that the stories are obvious BS. The nonsense they speak about Australia is just insecurity about their own situation.
Even Tucker Carlson indulged in this nonsense, claiming Australia was under martial law and other defamatory untruths. Do your homework.