Wednesday, July 31, 2024

6 Things The Elites Don't Want Civilians To Have

By Tim Gamble

This article is cross-posted from Dystopian Survival (https://www.dystopiansurvival.com/) because the information should be interesting and useful to both audiences. 


Ammo - We know how anti-gun the Elites are (at least for you, not for their bodyguards). They are always looking for ways to get around the second amendment and restrict civilian access to guns and ammo. Add to that the recent HUGE orders for ammunition placed by the US military, which industry experts say will tie up 90%+ of US ammunition manufacturing for the foreseeable future, and you have the perfect storm leading to ammo shortages and sharp price increases for the civilian market. I recommend you stock up ASAP on any ammo you think you may need for the next few years.  

Body Armor - You would think that equipment designed solely for the purpose of protecting people from getting shot would be acceptable to the Elites. It is not. Many states already have restrictions or even bans on civilians buying body armor, and others are considering such legislation. The only possible reason to ban civilian use of body armor is that they want to maintain their ability to kill you. 

Night Vision -  Using night vision devices (scopes, googles, binoculars, monoculars, cameras) for recreational purposes such as hunting, bird watching, and hiking at night, is already illegal in certain states, with other states considering restrictions or outright bans. Why? The official excuse is they might be used in criminal activity. The real reason is similar to why they don't want folks to own body armor. (Amazon link

Hemostatic Gauze - Maybe its because of recent huge buys by the military, but hemostatic gauze is getting really expensive and relatively scarce. But there is also evidence that regulatory agencies are quietly trying to restrict civilian access to hemostatic gauze, chest seals, and other trauma gear. Why would the government want to restrict civilian access to serious first aid gear? It is all about control. The good news is that hemostatic gauze is still available (Amazon link), but it is getting ridiculously expensive. Chest seals and other trauma supplies cand be found at Refuge Medical (my affiliate link - 10% off AT checkout). 

Seeds - Backyard gardens are unhealthy, dangerous, and contribute to global warming. At least that is the narrative being pushed by the Elites and their useful tools in the media. Backyard gardens are already being restricted in certain parts of Europe, and there is starting to be a push for garden registration in the US by both the federal government and some state governments. In some states, seed swapping is technically illegal, although not a priority for enforcement for local law enforcement (yet). As the anti-garden movement grows, expect seeds, and particularly heirloom seeds, to become more difficult for average folks to find and buy. And when you do, they will be increasingly expensive. Fortunately, we can still buy heirloom seeds (Amazon link), some which are packed in such a way as to have as much as a 10-year shelf life (Amazon link). 

Backyard Chickens - They don't want you producing your own food, and this includes having backyard chickens for meat or eggs. The bird flu has been much in the news lately, and some "experts" are starting to call for more restrictions and even outright banning of backyard chicken flocks.  

-------------------------
Ad: Survivalist Family, by Pastor Joe Fox (Viking Preparedness) is currently available at Refuge Medical for only $20. Great guide to beginner and intermediate preparedness and survival. Highly recommended!

Vaccine-Induced Diseases in Infants Increase Exponentially with Every Added Vaccine

By Tim Gamble

In the research article, “Adverse Outcomes Are Increased with Exposure to Added Combinations of Infant Vaccines,” published in June in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, scientists reveal the number of vaccine-induced diseases in infants and children increases exponentially, more than doubling, with every added vaccine.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has never performed safety studies on any of the combinations of vaccines it recommends on the CDC Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule. In practice, except for the hepatitis B vaccine recommended in the first 24 hours of life, infants rarely receive a single vaccine that is not administered in combination with other vaccines.
A 2-month-old infant adhering to the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule will receive all eight recommended vaccines at once in combination. The infant will receive an additional seven doses when they are four months old and could receive all eight vaccines again when they are six months old.
“Each additional vaccine more than doubles the number of diseases detected in the study,” said CHD Chief Scientific Officer Brian Hooker. “The article presents evidence of the risks that should be considered in personal and medical decision-making.”
The study looked at over 1.5 million infant vaccine combinations administered. The authors revealed that a total of 45 different diseases were diagnosed within the first 30 days after vaccination, including infection and developmental delays. Respiratory disease was the most recurring condition, with acute and chronic bronchitis presenting as an elevated risk in five different vaccine combinations.
The researchers found that infants who receive the vaccines DTaP + polio + HIB + pneumococcal + rotavirus in combination are 2,433% more likely to be diagnosed with obstructive chronic bronchitis with acute bronchitis within 30 days post-vaccination than infants who only receive a combination of DTaP + polio + HIB vaccines.
“In addition to the increased risk of respiratory disease, failure to thrive was the highest risk in the developmental delay category, and leukocytosis was the highest risk in the infection category,” according to CHD Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski. “Parents and practitioners need to be aware of these potential, very serious outcomes when making vaccine decisions for young children.”
Source: Press Release from Children's Health Defense (CHD) dated June 20, 2024.
------------------------------------
Ad:  B'Leaf Nature Quercetin Phytosome with Vitamin C and Zinc - 1000mg Enhanced Formulation (Amazon link)




Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Censorship Alert: Medical Study Showing COVID-19 Vaccines As a Cause of Death Being Actively Suppressed


The McCullough Foundation just released the following Breaking News on X (formerly Twitter). The following is taken directly from their press release on X. 

"BREAKING  - Elsevier and Forensic Science International to CENSOR and RETRACT our groundbreaking autopsy study, marking the second censorship attempt following its initial suppression on the LANCET preprint server. 

This represents a flagrant violation of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. 

The Biopharmaceutical complex does not want people to know that COVID-19 vaccines cause death. Their heinous actions to hide the truth will greatly backfire.


@P_McCulloughMD
 
@MakisMD
 
@ElsevierConnect
 

#MFScholar

------------------------------------
Ad:  B'Leaf Nature Quercetin Phytosome with Vitamin C and Zinc - 1000mg Enhanced Formulation (Amazon link)




Monday, July 29, 2024

National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism

Credit Line: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." 

This article is from the June/July 2024 issue of Imprimis. Get your FREE print subscription to Imprimis now! (click link to go to the Imprimis subscription webpage).

National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism

John Fonte 
Hudson Institute

The following is adapted from a talk delivered on April 18, 2024, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Bellevue, Washington.

In the past two years, two competing groups of conservatives—National Conservatives or NatCons and Freedom Conservatives or FreeCons—have issued competing manifestos. These manifestos reflect a divergent understanding of the progressive challenge to the American way of life.

This divergence can best be understood in the context of the history of modern American conservatism, which can be broken into three waves: the first wave, symbolized by William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan, lasted from the mid-1950s to the end of the Cold War; the second wave, symbolized by Paul Ryan and the two Bush presidencies, ran from the 1990s to roughly the second decade of this century; and the third wave, symbolized by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, is ongoing.

Modern American conservatism began with the circle around Buckley’s National Review magazine. Conservatism in this period united traditionalists, who were concerned above all with virtue, and classical liberals, who were concerned above all with liberty. National Review’s Frank Meyer famously developed a theory called fusionism, which argued that freedom was a prerequisite for a virtuous society. Fusionism, whatever its philosophical inconsistencies—and aided by the common and urgent cause of anti-communism—worked politically to hold differently-minded conservatives together, particularly during the Reagan administration.

Following the end of the Cold War, American conservatism entered a new phase, embracing globalization at home and abroad. Conservatives supported an integrated global economy, resulting in the North American Free Trade Agreement and China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization. President George H.W. Bush supported legislation that greatly increased immigration, and the State Department under James Baker abandoned traditional American opposition to dual citizenship. President George W. Bush promoted North American economic integration and declared in 2005 that it would henceforth be the goal of U.S. foreign policy “to seek and support the growth of [democracy] in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Paul Ryan exemplified this second wave of conservatism intellectually and politically by promoting free trade, entitlement reform, increased immigration, and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Ryan told the Washington Examiner: “We need an immigration system that’s more wired to give our economy the labor it needs to grow faster.”

The third wave of conservatism can be characterized as a nationalist-populist revolt against the policies and attitudes of the second wave, particularly on issues of immigration, trade, sovereignty, and national identity. Originally leading the opposition was U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, who for years issued amendments, memos, and speeches, explicitly calling for a humble populism and “immigration moderation . . . so that wages can rise, welfare rolls can shrink, and the forces of assimilation can knit us all more closely together.”

Donald Trump, needless to say, turbo-charged the nationalist-populist revolt and remains the leading political figure of third-wave conservatism. But I note Sessions’ contribution to make the point that third-wave conservatism did not begin, nor will it end, with Trump.

To a large extent, the current divide between National Conservatives and Freedom Conservatives is a divide between third wavers (NatCons) and second wavers (FreeCons).

NatCon Statement

The National Conservative Statement of Principles recognizes that progressives have already achieved dominance in American universities, K–­12 education, the media, Fortune 500 corporations, entertainment, Big Tech, Big Philanthropy, Big Law, the administrative state, many state and local bureaucracies, and the leadership of the military and the intelligence agencies. The statement thus rejects a strictly conservative approach of defending the status quo, calling rather for a counter-revolutionary sensibility.

The NatCon statement decries “with alarm” that “the traditional beliefs, institutions, and liberties . . . that we love have been progressively undermined and overthrown.” It calls for a restoration of the virtues inherent in “patriotism and courage, honor and loyalty, religion and wisdom, congregation and family, man and woman, the sabbath and the sacred, and reason and justice” as the “prerequisite for recovering and maintaining our freedom, security, and prosperity.”

NatCon theory favors the sovereignty of democratic nation-states over the authority of international institutions; the constitutional rule of law over the oligarchical rule of judges and administrators; a free enterprise economy that does not place abstract laissez faire theories above concrete national interests; a moral order that honors religion in the public square; the traditional family supported by economic and cultural conditions that prioritize normal family life and child-raising; an education policy that affirms patriotism and repudiates the contemporary academy; a more restrictive immigration policy that emphasizes national interests; and a color-blind approach to civil rights that opposes special treatment for any group regardless of outcomes.

NatCon policies began to emerge during the Trump administration. The National Security Strategy document of 2017 emphasized “strengthening American sovereignty” and realistic national interests rather than adherence to international institutions and global rules. In September 2020, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought (a NatCon signatory) issued a directive based on an executive order to end “employee trainings that use divisive propaganda to undermine the principle of fair and equal treatment for all.”

In the closing days of the Trump administration, the White House released the report of the 1776 Commission (chaired by another NatCon signatory, Hillsdale President Larry Arnn) that directly repudiated The New York Times’ 1619 Project, offering a patriotic and historically accurate civic education framework consistent with America’s founding principles. 

Last year Indiana Congressman Jim Banks founded the Anti-Woke Caucus, declaring, “Wokeism is a cancer that’s going to eat our country inside out and kill us if we don’t do something about it.” Since then, the caucus has introduced amendments eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) funding in the military and elsewhere.

At the state level, more than 30 bills have been introduced in 25 states prohibiting, restricting, and defunding DEI in public colleges. To date, ten bills have been signed into law. In Florida alone, Governor Ron DeSantis signed legislation that prohibited classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade; required transparency in educational materials so that parents could see what is being taught; prevented critical race theory indoctrination from kindergarten to public universities; revised a biased College Board African-American studies course, changing it into an academically sound black history course; revised history and civics standards to eliminate progressive bias; and transformed New College in Sarasota into an institution dedicated to the classical liberal arts.

FreeCon Response

In response to the NatCon statement, a group of mostly second-wave conservatives published a Freedom Conservative Statement of Principles. The statement itself was generally benign, affirming the principles of individual rights, private enterprise, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, and secure borders. Almost any conservative, including NatCons, could have signed it. But despite its benign character, some who signed the FreeCon statement—such as Bulwark editor Charlie Sykes—are Biden supporters due to their virulent opposition to third-wave conservatism. And the main organizer of the FreeCon statement, Avik Roy of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, wrote a series of articles making it clear that the statement’s purpose was to repudiate National Conservatism.

According to Roy, the FreeCon statement was modeled on the Sharon Statement of the Young Americans for Freedom adopted at William F. Buckley’s home in Sharon, Connecticut in 1960. But there were some obvious differences. The Sharon Statement, for instance, declared “that foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will.” But the FreeCon statement (unlike the NatCon statement) makes no reference to God. Also, whereas the fusionism that characterized first-wave conservatism hinged on the symbiotic relationship of freedom and virtue, the FreeCon statement (again unlike the NatCon statement) makes no reference to virtue.

In practical terms, Roy charges the NatCons with a “willing[ness] to abridge individual and economic freedom to fight the woke Left.” He is dismissive of efforts by DeSantis and other governors to fight the advance of woke education in their states, preferring the idea of universal education savings accounts. He also talks tepidly about “eliminat[ing] DEI excesses,” as if some form of DEI would be acceptable.

On combatting racial discrimination, Roy maintains that FreeCons would go further than NatCons “by recognizing the persistent inequality of opportunity for descendants of the victims of slavery and segregation.” The FreeCon statement commits to expanding opportunity for “victims” who face “economic and personal hurdles” as a result of this persistent injustice. Although the statement specifically opposes affirmative action and discrimination, such language borders on agreement with the woke Left’s view that America is “systemically racist.”

The general view of FreeCon critics of National Conservatism seems to be that NatCons depart radically from the first-wave conservative principles of Buckley and Reagan. But to a significant extent, NatCons seem closer in spirit to the legacy of first-wave conservatism than the FreeCons.

There was a nationalist-populist overtone, for instance, to the Reagan victory in 1980. As Irving Kristol put it: “Reagan . . . came out of the West riding a horse, not a golf cart, speaking in the kind of nationalist-populist tonalities not heard since Teddy Roosevelt, appealing to large sections of the working class.” In 1980, the Big Business-oriented Republican establishment—a similar establishment to the one that now looks askance at Trump’s populist MAGA movement—considered Reagan unreliable and preferred George H.W. Bush, John Connally, Howard Baker, and Robert Dole.

In the mid-1950s, fusionist Frank Meyer regretted that the terms “‘nationalist,’ even ‘patriot’ [had] become terms of reproach.” Buckley himself famously sounded a strong populist note when he declared that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University.

First-wave conservatism did not embrace anything like the neo-con foreign policy views of second-wave conservatism. Buckley’s National Review advocated anti-Soviet Communism, not the worldwide promotion of democracy. Indeed, the magazine supported undemocratic leaders such as Franco in Spain, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, and Salazar in Portugal. Reagan worked with undemocratic forces including the Argentine military, Communist China, the Afghan Mujahedeen, Savimbi in Angola, and Somoza elements within the Nicaraguan Contras. To be sure, Reagan withdrew support for undemocratic allies in the Philippines and South Korea, and later put more emphasis on the ideological struggle between democracy and Soviet Communism, endorsing the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy. But even that was within the context of the Cold War and was focused on opposing the Soviet threat.

Nor was the Buckley-Reagan era one of unalloyed laissez faire on immigration and trade. National Review supported the McCarran-Walter Act to restrict immigration. In 1986, Reagan hoped to achieve a grand bargain in immigration policy—he agreed to amnesty for three million illegal immigrants in return for enhanced border security. We all know how that turned out: amnesty first, followed by continued weak enforcement.

Reagan negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada, but he also used tariffs when he believed them to be in America’s interest. William Niskanen, who served on Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, said that “the [Reagan] administration imposed more new restraints on trade than any administration since Hoover.” Overall, the share of American imports covered by trade restrictions increased under Reagan from eight percent in 1975 to 21 percent by 1984.

***

The key difference between NatCons and FreeCons has to do with the character of the current political struggle against progressives on the Left. FreeCons believe we are mainly involved in policy arguments. FreeCon signatory Yuval Levin, for instance, writes that our divisions are a family argument between two forms of liberalism: progressive liberalism and conservative liberalism—we are not, he assures us, in a “political fight to the death.” National conservatives, on the other hand, generally believe we are involved in what the late Angelo Codevilla called a “Cold Civil War”—or as third waver Victor Davis Hanson has put it, we are in an “existential war for the soul of America.”

Here, too, NatCons seem to be closer in spirit to first-wave conservatives. Early National Review senior editor Willmoore Kendall, for instance, wrote that since liberalism “seeks a change of regime, the replacement of one regime by another, of a different type altogether, it is, quite simply, revolutionary.” Kendall asks: “Is the destiny of America the Liberal Revolution or is it the destiny envisaged for it by the Founders of our Republic?” And Buckley’s closest advisor, James Burnham, wrote in his book Suicide of the West that “the principal function of modern liberalism” is to facilitate the suicide of Western Civilization. This suicide would be rationalized “by the light of the principles of liberalism, not as a final defeat, but as a transition to a new and higher order in which Mankind as a whole joins in a universal civilization.”

The Disney Controversy

In his campaign against woke progressivism in Florida, Governor DeSantis is perhaps best known for his conflict with the Walt Disney Corporation. The drama of a Republican governor in a serious conflict with a major corporation in his state over core principles highlights the difference between second- and third-wave conservatives.

In 1967, at the request of Walt Disney himself, the Florida legislature passed a law that gave the Disney Corporation its own autonomous local government, with an independent tax district and its own board of supervisors. It was exempt from many state and local environmental rules, building codes, and development restrictions. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Disney sav[ed] tens of millions of dollars a year by avoiding paying certain county and state taxes and fees.”

When these benefits were granted, the Disney Corporation was a stalwart promoter of popular middle class American patriotism. But by the 2020s it had become an active supporter of the woke revolution. Under pressure from its employees, Disney denounced and lobbied against DeSantis’ Parental Rights in Education Act that prohibited instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity to children from kindergarten to third grade. In response, DeSantis and the state legislature established a state oversight board that ended Disney’s control over the district. Disney sued the state but ultimately lost.

Second-wave conservatives like Nikki Haley and Mike Pence criticized DeSantis on ideological grounds. Haley invited Disney to relocate to South Carolina, declaring, “We don’t need government fighting against our private industries.” DeSantis replied that Haley represented the “corporate element” in the GOP. “We need to stand up for the people,” he said. “The days of Republicans just deferring to large corporations . . . need to be over.”

For his part, Pence charged that DeSantis “turned his back on the principles that make our country great,” presumably referring to the principles of the American Founding. We cannot, of course, know with certainty what the Founders would have done. But we can speculate with the help of Hillsdale Politics Professor Thomas West. In his book The Political Theory of the American Founding, West examined state constitutions and laws of the period. He discovered that the Founders were vigorous in their promotion of a natural rights (rather than a libertarian) view of the common good. In practice, that meant enacting laws that sustained the moral order rather than assuming a strictly “hands off” approach to the private sector.

Let us speculate that in 18th century Massachusetts or Virginia there was a powerful corporation that controlled its own local government, had its own board of supervisors, made its own rules and regulations, and had a more favorable tax situation than other corporations. In addition, this corporation exercised undue influence in the politics and culture of the state and recently promoted manners and mores that undermined the principles and beliefs of the majority of citizens. Unlike the Haley-Pence view that corporations are somehow sacrosanct, it would not surprise us if an 18th century Massachusetts or Virginia state government would have responded as DeSantis did, acting in the name of republican government and the common good, by ending the corporation’s special fiefdom.

The Disney controversy helps to clarify a core difference between second- and third-wave conservatism. Second wavers argue that civil society and culture generally must be neutral zones free of any governmental or overt political influence. Third wavers see culture as crucial, because they believe it is critical to the struggle for ideological hegemony.

***

I will conclude with a recommendation on terminology that could become the basis for a new conservative fusionism. The conflict today is not simply a normal policy argument between conservatives and progressives. It is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture. Therefore, those who affirm the American nation—whether they are NatCons, FreeCons, or patriotic liberals—should be called Americanists. Those who find our inheritance deeply problematic and seek a revolutionary transformation of the American regime should, logically, be called Transformationists. Today’s polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists.

###

Credit Line: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." 

The above article is from the June/July 2024 issue of Imprimis. Get your FREE print subscription to Imprimis now! (click link to go to the Imprimis subscription webpage). 
______________________
Join the Resistance, Subscribe to Tim Gamble by clicking here and by following me on Gab at https://gab.com/TimGamble

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Resisting the Elites: Understanding Technocracy


This is a rewritten, updated, and expanded version of an earlier article.

Technocracy is the tool being used so successfully by the Power Elites to control the masses. This intersection of technology and power (government and corporate) needs to be examined and understood if we are to protect ourselves and our families, and resist the transformation of human civilization.

In this article, I hope to briefly explain what technocracy is, what its goals are, and to give a brief outline of its history. I also hope to point out its many dangers and flaws.

What is Technocracy?  

Technocracy is a movement, an economic system, and a proposed form of government, that started in the 1930s at Columbia University. It is also a form of social engineering. Its primary goal is to replace free enterprise and capitalism with a resource-based system using energy credits as its basic accounting units, rather than traditional forms of currency. (Does this sound familiar? It is found in the carbon tax / cap-and-trade schemes of the climate change enthusiasts.) 

This new economic system would be run by technocrats - scientists and other so-called "experts" - who would control 100% of the means of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. (Sounds similar to Marxism, doesn't it? It is a form of Marxism.) 

In a more dystopian twist, the "experts" running the system would include artificial intelligence and computer algorithms making many of the decisions, rather than actual people.    

A major goal of this new economic system is sustainable development, also known as the "Green Economy." (Another term that should sound familiar. And don't be fooled by nice sounding terms.) 

Under this new economic system, cities would be retrofitted into "Smart Cities" and "15-Minute Cities" (yet more familiar terms if you are paying attention) with massive surveillance systems used to control the populace. (Sounds kind of like a Police State, huh? Because it is. ) 

Another goal is the end of rural living, as everyone will be forced to live in these smart cities. Yes, that means you. At least that is their plan. (Notice how anti-farming the environmental movement has become? And notice the push towards insects-as-food, lab-grown meats, and bio-engineered (GMO) foods.) 

Private property will no longer exist. Everything will be owned by the government. "You will own nothing and be happy." (Does that phrase sound familiar? It should thanks to the World Economic Forum (WEF). It is one of their major goals.) 

Parental Rights will no longer exist. The government will own and raise your children as it sees fit. If you interfere, your children will be taken away from you. (Did you notice California's recent move against parental rights? Parents in California no longer even have the right to even know if their child is using a alternative pronouns in school or is discussing gender transformation with school or health officials.)

Social credit systems, similar to what is already being used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), will be global. Your ability to get a job, get an education, afford a home, get medical care, even to get married or have children, will depend on maintaining a favorable social score. Your level of Internet access will be determined by your social score, as will your ability to travel. It is all about control. Of you. (Australia and much of Europe are already openly moving in this direction.) 

The concept of Individual Liberty will end. No Freedom of Speech. No Freedom of Religion. No Freedom of the Press. No Freedom of Assembly. No Right to Bear Arms. No Right to Self-Defense. No Right to Refuse any vaccination, medical test or treatment the Government deems "necessary." (Remember the calls made by many people, including many doctors and politicians, that folks who refuse the Covid vaccination be fined, jailed, or sent to re-education camps? That will become reality.) 

National borders will become obsolete. In fact, the very concept of a nation-state will come to an end. (Notice the open borders chaos intentional fomented by Border Czar Kamala Harris, DHS Secretary Mayorkas and the rest of the Left.)

The plan is to eventually do away with elected governments and constitutions. Elected politicians will be obsolete, which sounds good until you remember that they will be replaced with unelected, unaccountable technocrats, artificial intelligence, and algorithms. 

We are talking about a Scientific Dictatorship in charge of 100% of the economy, political system, and legal system. And, remember, we are NOT supposed to question Science. 

Should we abandon technology? 

No. The problem isn't technology. Technology is only the tool. Blaming technology for the actions of the Power Elite makes as little sense as blaming the gun for the action of the criminal. Besides, the genie has already escaped the bottle, and there is no putting it back.

Instead, we need to understand what is being done to us, and how it is being done. And then we need to focus efforts against the Elites trying to control us with technology and social engineering. 

Who are the Power Elite? 

In short, they are the "bad guys." They are the ones trying to control the masses for their own selfish profit and power. 

Power Elite is a term first used in the 1950s by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills to describe a loose-knit group of government, military, and corporate leaders who are the center of wealth and power in the USA, and therefore dominate American political policies. (Note: This is not a conspiracy theory, but rather an acknowledgement of the mutual interests of a wealthy and powerful segment of society.)

Over the decades, the USA Power Elite have increasingly cooperated with the Power Elite from other Western Nations to push a globalist, technocratic agenda. Since at least the 1990s, the CCP has used their power, money and access to the vast Chinese markets to exert influence over the Power Elite, a situation made even easier by the Power Elites' admiration for the CCP system of highly centralized, authoritarian control. 

See the book Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy Americafor more on the CCP's plans. It is an English translation of a work by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. (By the way, the concept of Lawfare - the misuse and abuse of the legal system for political benefit - comes straight out of this book. Just in case you were wondering where the Left got the idea.) 

The Power Elite are a very small segment of the population, yet they control a vast amount of wealth and power. And they have many "useful tools" on their side in academia, the media, union leadership, throughout pop culture, and amongst the many "social justice" warriors. 

Suggested Readings:

** Technocracy News and Trends (website)

** The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism (book)

** Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order (book)

______________________
AD:  Proverbs 22:3 T-Shirt - "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Available in men's, women's, and youth sizes, and in multiple colors.




This is what #Resistance looks like.

By Tim Gamble

Many folks fantasize about being a Resistance Fighter, but the reality of resistance is different than what many think. It is finding ways to live out your best life despite all the obstacles put in your way. Maybe it is means growing your own garden to provide healthy real food for yourself and your family. Maybe it means going to a Bible-believing church as a family. Maybe it means being self-employed. Maybe it means home-schooling your kids. Maybe it means paying off your personal debt. These things aren't as sexy as running around the woods in fatigues, carrying a rifle, but are just as important... No. Strike that. These things are more important to any resistance movement than warrior fantasies.  

____________________

Ad: 
Refuge Medical & Refuge Training - High Quality, American Made, First Aid Kits and Medical Supplies! (Training, too!).  A 10% Discount Code will automatically be applied at checkout using this link. 

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Weaponization of the HHS and the DOJ: Texas Children Hospital whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim

By Tim Gamble

Much as been made in recent years of the weaponization of various government agencies to not go after criminals, but rather to go after and punish political dissent. Numerous examples have been pointed out of the DOJ, FBI, ATF, IRS, and even the EPA, among others, being used to go after political opposition. This article looks at a current example of the Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) going after Texas Children Hospital whistleblower Dr. Eithan Haim. 

From a statement released Monday, July 22, by America First Legal (AFL):

"HHS has aggressively promoted the chemical castration and physical mutilation of children who “identify” as the opposite sex. However, on February 22, 2022, the Texas Attorney General opined that a wide range of “gender affirming” or “sex change” procedures and treatments, when performed on children, can legally constitute child abuse under several provisions of chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code. On Friday, March 4, 2022, Texas Children’s Hospital stated that it was ceasing such procedures and treatments “to safeguard our health care professionals and impacted families from potential criminal legal ramifications.” 

However, it appears the Hospital lied. On May 16, 2023, Christopher Rufo published leaked documents allegedly showing that the hospital continued to conduct “gender-affirming” experiments with drugs and surgery on children after the Texas Attorney General’s ruling and after the Hospital stated such experiments had ceased. 

In January 2024, Dr. Haim confirmed that he was the whistleblower. Reportedly, he said “It’s my responsibility as a doctor, as a physician, to expose this to the public. If I don’t, then this abuse can continue.” He also reportedly said that “future generations, like my children, would never be able to forgive me if they knew I had the chance to do something and I decided to stay silent.” According to Dr. Haim, all sensitive patient information had been redacted from the documents he provided to Mr. Rufo.

Nevertheless, Dr. Haim has been indicted. On June 17, 2024, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas issued a press release titled “Doctor charged for unauthorized access to personal information of pediatric patients at Texas Children’s Hospital.” The government alleged Dr. Haim obtained “unauthorized access to personal information of pediatric patients under false pretenses and later disclosed it to a media contact.” It further alleged that Dr. Haim “obtained this information under false pretenses and with intent to cause malicious harm” to Texas Children’s Hospital. The government has classified Dr. Haim’s conduct as “Health Care Fraud”; he faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 maximum possible fine for blowing the whistle to protect children. 

This prosecution appears to be yet another example of the Biden Administration’s abuse of the criminal justice system to advance its extreme social agenda. This investigation will shine additional light on Biden’s weaponization of the federal government and disregard for common sense and the rule of law. AFL will keep fighting to protect our children. 

Statements of America First Legal Senior Advisor Ian Prior:

“The Biden Administration’s weaponization of the federal government is not just limited to political opponents but has now been extended to ordinary Americans who blow the whistle on the horrific and illegal medical experimentation performed on children in the name of transgender ideology. It has become crystal clear through our investigation into the Department of Health and Human Services that the federal government is intent on doing everything it can to investigate and punish states and individuals that choose not to go along with the Biden Administration’s push for medicating, sterilizing, and mutilating children. America First Legal will leave no stone unturned in its mission to end this dark and inhumane practice that will be appropriately judged in the near future as nothing short of a crime against humanity.“ said Ian Prior."

The full statement by AFL, including the link to the FIOA materials, can be found by clicking here

____________________

Ad: 
Refuge Medical & Refuge Training - High Quality, American Made, First Aid Kits and Medical Supplies! (Training, too!).  A 10% Discount Code will automatically be applied at checkout using this link. 

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Issues State Alert For Massachusetts

By Tim Gamble

July 24, 2024 - Yesterday, Gun Owners of America (GOA) issued a state alert for Massachusetts regarding Legislative Bill H 4885, which GOA refers to as "The Anti Liberty Super Bill." 

From the GOA write-up issued yesterday:

"Last week anti-gun Democrats in Massachusetts passed a partisan bill antithetical to the very spirit of the Second Amendment. 

H 4885 comprehensively restructures gun law in Massachusetts under one of the most vehemently anti-liberty laws we’ve ever seen. The 116-page legislation was purposely written in a complex manner that requires tedious referencing of the Massachusetts General Laws to fully understand. H 4885 includes, but is not limited to: 

  • A complete semi-automatic firearm and “high-capacity” magazine ban with a grandfathering date of August 1, 2024. 
  • Tougher penalties on homemade firearms — all frames and receivers are expected to be serialized. 
  • Expansion of Red Flag laws. 
  • Stricter testing/licensing standards, which creates a new training curriculum that includes injury prevention, suicide prevention, disengagement tactics, live fire training, and completion of a written exam. 
  • An outright ban on “undetectable firearms.” 
  • Allowing the Department of Criminal Justice access to firearm owners personal data by making changes to information protection law. 
  • Bans the usage of 3-D printers and CNC milling machines to manufacture or assemble any firearm without a license to carry firearms.  
  • Bans the sale of 3-D printers and CNC milling machines that have the “primary or intended function of manufacturing or assembling firearms.”  
  • New permitting laws for pepper spray. 
  • Expansion of the current Firearm Control Advisory Board. 

If you didn’t think this was enough, House Speaker Ronald Mariano touted H 4885 as, “The culmination of a multi-year process that began after the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority issued their disastrous Bruen decision, which weakened the Commonwealth’s gun safety laws and endangered our residents.”  

In the face of this monumental threat to liberty, the GOA and our legal team are exploring all options to fight this legislation until the Second Amendment has been rightfully restored in Massachusetts. "

The full GOA write-up, along with links to contact MA Governor Maura Healy and to donate to the GOA legal fund, can be found on the GOA website by clicking here.

____________________

Ad: 
Refuge Medical & Refuge Training - High Quality, American Made, First Aid Kits and Medical Supplies! (Training, too!).  A 10% Discount Code will automatically be applied at checkout using this link.