Category Archives: TiLT News

Victims of the Vaccine

TiLTNews Network

A Mark Steyn Show Special
July 14, 2022

Thank you to all who dialed up The Mark Steyn Show on Ulster’s Glorious Twelfth. Despite the usual technical “glitches”, Mark yet again thrashed Piers Morgan in the Tuesday ratings, despite all the bus sides that generous Mr Murdoch has bought his star signing.

Wednesday’s Steyn Show was a special edition devoted to a topic Mark has focused on particularly in the last six months – the devastating damage done around the world to millions of hitherto healthy persons by the Covid “vaccines”. Before an audience of those injured and bereaved by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, Steyn covered various aspects of a great injustice to entirely blameless citizens. His guests included the very first widows of the vaccine he had on his show some months back, Vikki Spit and Charlotte Wright, and the only MP interested in doing anything about the issue, Sir Christopher Chope. Click below to watch:

Mark Steyn Club members can read the transcript of this episode here.

If you’re a member of The Mark Steyn Club, feel free to weigh in below. If you’re wondering what the Steyn Club’s all about, you can find more details here – and we also have a great gift membership.

© 2022 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of Mark Steyn Enterprises.

If you’re a member of The Mark Steyn Club and you take issue with this article, then have at it in our comments section.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to steynonline’s free weekly mailing list

Load Comments

TiLTNews Network

Ben “MAGAlomaniac” Harnwell on GETTR : Dutch Farmer Protests — our sociopathic globalist overlords strike again

TiLTNews Network

Dutch Farmer Protests — our sociopathic globalist overlords strike again

Source: Ben “MAGAlomaniac” Harnwell on GETTR : Dutch Farmer Protests — our sociopathic globalist overlords strike again

TiLTNews Network

EXCLUSIVE: Steve Bannon Interviews the Heroic Archbishop Viganò

TiLTNews Network, by EDITOR

Your Excellency, after the psycho-pandemic, we now have the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Are we in “phase two” of one single project, or can we now consider the Covid farce to be over and concern ourselves with the increase in energy prices?

If in the last two years we had been faced with a true pandemic, caused by a deadly virus for which no other cures existed except for a vaccine, we would be able to think that the emergency was not intended. But this is not what happened: the SARS-CoV-2 virus is nothing but a seasonal flu that could have been cured with existing treatments and effective prevention based on strengthening immune defenses. The prohibition of treatment, the discrediting of the effectiveness of drugs that have been in use for decades, the decision to hospitalize the elderly who became sick in nursing homes and the imposition of an experimental gene treatment that has been demonstrated not only to be ineffective but also harmful and often fatal – all thisconfirms for us that the pandemic has been planned and managed with the purpose of creating the greatest damage possible. This is a fact that has been established and confirmed by the official data, despite the systematic falsification of that same data.

Certainly, those who wanted to manage the pandemic in this way are not disposed now to yield easily, also because there are billionaire interests behind all of it. But what “they” want does not always necessarily happen.

In your opinion, Your Excellency, was the pandemic managed in this way due to inexperience? Or was it due to the corruption of those in positions of control who are in a conflict of interest because they are paid off by the pharmaceutical industry?

This is the second element to consider: the response to the pandemic was the same all over the world, where health authorities slavishly adapted to health protocols that were contrary to the scientific literature and medical evidence, instead following the directives of self-proclaimed “experts,” who have a record of sensational failures, apocalyptic predictions completely divorced from reality, and very grave conflicts of interest. We cannot think that millions of doctors all over the world have lost their basic knowledge of the art of medicine, believing that a flu should be allowed to evolve into pneumonia and then be treated with tachypirin or by placing patients on ventilators. If they have done this, it is due to pressure – even to the point of blackmail – by health authorities over medical personnel, with the help of a scandalous campaign of media terrorism and with the support of Western leaders. Most of these leaders are members of a lobby – the World Economic Forum – that trained them and placed them at the highest levels of national and international institutions in order to be certain that those who govern would be obedient. Klaus Schwab has publicly boasted, on many occasions, of being able to interfere even with religious leaders. These too are documented facts in all the nations that followed the directives of the WHO and the pharmaceutical companies. There is clearly a single script under a single direction: this demonstrates the existence of a criminal design and the malice of its creators.

In some of your other statements, you have spoken of a “golpe bianco” (a “silent coup”).

A “silent coup” is a coup d’état that takes place without the use of force, carried out by a government that exercises power in an unconstitutional way.

In this case the coup was carried out in all the Western nations almost simultaneously, beginning with the first years of the 1990s. For Italy, this coup began with the divestment of investee companies and the privatization of services that normally burdened the treasury, such as health and transportation services, following the directives given by high finance to Mario Draghi on June 2, 1992, on the yacht Britannia. Yes, Mario Draghi, who at the time was General Director of the Ministry of the Treasury and whom then-President of the Italian Republic Francesco Cossiga called a “cowardly businessman.” In other nations this coup took place in an analogous way, with a series of progressive transfers of sovereignty to supra-national entities like the European Commission, the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. With the introduction of the euro [in 2002], monetary sovereignty was removed from the nations adhering to the Maastricht Treaty, transferring it to the European Central Bank, which is a private bank. This bank decides the rate with which it finances national budgets, using money that these same nations have already given it. In practice, the European Central Bank demands interest on money that it only returns a penny at a time, and only on certain conditions: reforms, cuts in public spending, the imposition of laws promoting gender equality, abortion rights, the indoctrination of children, etc. The introduction of a balanced budget requirement into the [Italian] Constitution – as if the State was a company – was also part of the silent coup.

All the members of these bodies, including the same rulers who have been appointed at the recommendation of non-elected powers or have succeeded in winning election thanks to the manipulation of information, are at the same time the servants of high finance power groups or of large investment funds – some were their employees, such as Draghi of Goldman Sachs – others became employees after their term ended. Just like the drug agencies and health organizations are composed of former BigPharma employees, who often receive consulting contracts and who are paid by the very pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to be keeping an eye on.

Up until the pandemic, power was in practice still managed at least formally by individual nations, and laws were passed by Parliaments. But for the last two years, the Parliaments have been deprived of authority, and all those whom the World Economic Forum and other lobbies have succeeded in placing at the high levels of governments and international institutions have begun to legislate against the Constitution and the interests of the Nation, obeying orders given to them from on high – “from the markets,” they tell us – which in fact is made up of a very small number of multinational corporations that engulf competing companies, flatten professional skills with damage to the quality of the product, and reduce the protection and wages of workers thanks to the complicity of unions and of the Left.

In short, we are governed by a high command of usurers and speculators, from Bill Gates who invests in large farms right on the eve of the food emergency or in vaccines just before the outbreak of the pandemic, to George Soros, who speculates on the fluctuations of currencies and government bondsand along with Hunter Biden finances a bio-laboratory in Ukraine.

To think that there is no relationship between the instigators of these crimes and those who carry them out at the highest levels of national governments, the EU, and the UN is a sign of bad faith, because even a child could understand that we are held hostage by a group of technocrats who are ideologically deviant and morally corrupt. The peoples of the world need to reclaim their sovereignty, which has been usurped by the globalist elite.

The instigators of this crime show themselves proudly at the Davos Forum, at meetings of the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group along with the rulers, prime ministers, directors of newspapers and television broadcasters, CEOs of social bankers and directors of social platforms and multinational corporations, bankers and directors of ratings agencies, presidents of foundations and self-styled philanthropists. All of these share the same agenda – which they publish on their websites – and are so confident in their own power that they affirm it with impunity – as Soros and Schwab have recently done – that it is necessary to create a narrative to be conveyed through the mainstream media, in order to make their decisions acceptable to the people. They embrace censorship and mass manipulation as instrumentum regni, and we have had proof of this both with the pandemic farce as well as with the pro-Zelensky propaganda in Ukraine.

We must understand that our rulers are traitors of our Nation who are devoted to the elimination of populations, and that all of their actions are carried out in order to cause the greatest amount of harm to citizens. It is not a problem of inexperience or inability but rather of an intentio nocendi – a deliberate intention to harm. Honest citizens find it inconceivable that those who govern them could do it with the perverse intention of undermining and destroying them, so much so that they find it very hard to believe. The main cause of this very serious problem is found in the corruption of authority along with the resigned obedience of those who are governed.

The Catholic Church also, beginning with the revolution of Vatican II and above all during the last nine years of the Bergoglian “pontificate,” has experienced the same cognitive dissonance: the faithful and the Clergy have resigned themselves to obeying mere cynical officials – who are no less corrupt and perverted than their counterparts in the deep state – although it has been evident that the purpose of the alleged “reforms” has always been the systematic destruction of the Church by its highest leaders, who are heretics and traitors. And I note that the deep church has had recourse to the same false arguments in order to pass off the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical dissolution: first of all, the false contention that those reforms were requested “from the ground up” and not imposed with force from on high. Just like the reforms planned by the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg group, and the Trilateral are adopted by their infiltrators in the highest levels of nations and international organisms, making it appear that their plans are ratified by popular consent.

And what do you advise, Your Excellency, to get out of this dead end?

Respect for authority is connatural to civilized man, but it is necessary to distinguish between obedience and servility. You see, every virtue consists of the just mean between two opposite vices, without being a compromise, but also as the peak between two valleys, so to speak. Disobedience sins by falling short, not wanting to submit to a good order of a legitimate authority; servility on the other hand sins by excess, submitting to unfair orders or orders given by an illegitimate authority. The good citizen should know how to disobey civil authority, and the good Catholic how to do the same with ecclesiastical authority, disobeying whenever the authority demands obedience to an iniquitous order.

Doesn’t such talk seem to be a bit revolutionary, Your Excellency?

Far from it. The anarchists and courtiers both have a distorted concept of authority: the former deny it while the latter idolize it. The just mean is the only morally viable way, because it responds to the order that the Lord has imprinted on the world and that respect the celestial hierarchy. We owe obedience to legitimate authority in the measure in which its power is exercised for the purposes for which authority has been established by God: the temporal good of citizens in the case of the State and the spiritual good of the faithful in the case of the Church. An authority that imposes evil on its subjects is for that very reason illegitimate and its orders are null. Let’s not forget that the true Lord from whom all authority comes is God, and that the earthly authority – civil as well as spiritual – is always vicarious, that is, it is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, King and High Priest. Setting up the vicarious authority of rulers in the place of the royal authority of the Lord is a mad gesture and – yes – revolutionary and rebellious.

What does the elite want to obtain? It promises us peace, security, prosperity, and work, but there are more than fifty armed conflicts currently taking place in the world; our cities are unlivable, full of criminals, immersed in decay and dominated by minorities of deviant people.

This is the third indisputable element that should not be overlooked: the pandemic was planned as an instrument for the establishment of a totalitarian regime, conceived by unelected technocrats who are devoid of any sense of democratic representation.

The same thing is happening with the Ukraine crisis: the majority of citizens is absolutely not in favor of sending weapons to Ukraine and imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation, and yet heads of government act as if they have the complete support of their own nations, supported by embarrassing falsifications of reality by the mainstream media. And in certain countries such as Italy, this is taking place in a situation of disturbing complicity by all the powers of the State, both in legitimizing the violation of fundamental rights under the anti-Covid regulations as well as in ratifying participation in a conflict even though there was never any deliberation about entering it by the Italian Parliament, and which even the President of the Republic, the guarantor of the Constitution, approves and encourages, to the applause of European technocrats. In this case too, those who govern are neither obeying the will of the people not pursuing the common good, but rather following orders handed down to them from supranational entities with their own interests, which we know are subversive.

When they speak of “transformation of goods intoservices,” of “sharing economy” through the digital sector, they intend to expropriate private property from citizens: “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” And when they impose the privatization of state goods or services, they want to appropriate the profits while leaving the costs on the shoulders of the community.  But since not all countries are willing to do this “reset,” they are forcing them to accept it by provoking economic crises, pandemics, and wars. This is high treason and subversion.

The premeditated nature of this subversion is blatantly clear, as is the awareness of the disastrous consequences of the social, economic, and health decisions that have been made both with regard to the pandemic as well as the Ukraine crisis. Bergoglio has also admitted it: a head of state revealed to him, months before Putin’s military operation in Ukraine, that NATO and the European Union are deliberately provoking the Russian Federation, after having ignored for years the ethnic cleansing carried out by Kiev against the Russian-speaking minority in Donbass and the Crimea. The purpose of this provocation was to spark a conflict that would provide a cover to legitimize imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation and force Western nations to undertake the “green transition.” And at the same time, it would prostrate the economy of nations to the advantage of a few international investment funds and market speculation. In essence, the same premises are given that were made to justify the Enclosure Acts in England and later the Holodomor in Ukraine in order to transform the peasant masses into low-cost labor for the industrialization of the large cities. If war was to be avoided, NATO should not have been enlarged in violation of the treaties, and protection should have been assured for the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine, as called for by the 2014 Minsk Protocol.

If this has not been done, it is because the realpurpose that they have wanted to achieve has nothing to do with the apparent purpose they have publicly declared. And I note that these are not abstract speculations but concrete facts that were anticipated and planned decades ago by Great Reset theorists, with the aim of forcing a social change that nobody wants, making the economy and finance of the Western world start over from scratch – just like one restarts a computer.

The fact that this causes misery, bankruptcy, the failure of businesses, unemployment, social instability, and the widening of the gap between the rich and poor, the decline of the birth rate and the reduction of essential services is considered a negligible detail, with the sole concern of indoctrinating the masses with false arguments in favor of war or the control of every detail of people’s lives, criminalizing whoever dissents and pointing to them as the enemy of the people. It seems to me that this narrative is sinking under the weight of the lies of the elite and its accomplices.

Could you give us an example, Your Excellency?

The most obvious example is discovering that Richard Kalergi, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, wanted to pursue social engineering policies aimed at modifying European national societies through immigration and cross breeding, driving migration waves with the attractiveness of cheaper labor costs. Seeing the wicked obstinacy with which the waves of illegal immigrants continue to be welcomed, even when the impact that this phenomenon has on the safety of cities and on the general crime rate and the identity of national populations is obvious, demonstrates that the initial plan has been realized for the most part, and that action must be taken to prevent it from being completed.

And yet these are not things that are happening by chance: they have told us so.

You are absolutely right: what baffles me is noting with what impudence the proponents of the Agenda 2030 have told us well in advance which criminal projects they intended to impose on us against our will; despite this evidence, there are those who amazed that after years of unstoppable infiltration they are actually realizing their plans right in front of our eyes even as they accuse us of being “conspiracy theorists.” There is definitely a conspiracy, but the ones who must be put on trial are the ones who have carried it out, not those who denounce it.

Joe Biden lays responsibility for the crisis at the feet of Vladimir Putin. Do you agree with this judgment?

Americans are well aware that the price of gasoline had risen well before the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and further increased due to sanctions – real or alleged – of the international community against the Russian Federation. Today we know that sanctions – as was foreseeable – have not affected Putin in the least, but the motive behind them is that they were supposed to strike Western nations, and in particular the nations of Europe, in order to provoke an economic and energy crisis by means of which to legitimize the ecological transition, rations, population control, and the censorship of information.

Putin did not take the bait offered him by the provocations of the deep state, limiting himself to intervening only as necessary to give security and protection to Russian-speaking Donbass. And he stormed the Azovstal steel plant, which hid one of the secret American biolabs that produced bacteriological weapons and carried out experiments with SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, the Biden family had every interest in a having a war in Ukraine, in order to cover up the corruption cases involving Hunter Biden and to distract people from the impending scandals looming over Obama and Hillary Clinton for Russiagate and over the deep state for the electoral fraud carried out against Trump.

The US proxy war against the Russian invasion is in reality a war of the deep state against a nation that has refused to accept being engulfed by the delusions of globalist technocrats and that today has proofs of the crimes committed by the deep state. But while the EU can blackmail European nations, tying the disbursement of funds and interest rates on loans to the implementation of “reforms” – since these nations have limited monetary and fiscal sovereignty – the same is not true for Russia, which is a sovereign and independent nation, as well as self-sufficient in terms of raw materials, energy, and agricultural food resources.

Is this bipolar vision, which re-proposes the Cold War confrontation between the USA and the USSR, no longer valid?

The hegemonic Left has established a Manicheandivision between good and evil: left vs. right, liberalism vs. fascism, globalism vs. sovereignism, vaccinism vs. No-vax. The “good guys” are obviously those on the left: liberal but supportive, globalist, inclusive, ecumenical, resilient, and sustainable. The “bad guys” are just as obviously patriots, Christians, right-wingers, sovereignists, and heterosexuals.

What distinguishes the current structure of Western countries from the past?

The fusion of the worst of liberalism with the worst of collective socialism. Today we see, after two years of the pandemic farce, how globalist liberalism has made use of communist and dictatorial methods to impose itself with its Great Reset, and how the communist regimes are using liberal methods to enrich the upper echelons of the party without losing total control over the population. This demonstrates that the geopolitical balance is shifting towards a multi-polar vision and that bipolarism fueled by the deep state is in decline.

Is there any analogy between what is happening in the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

The deep church is an offshoot of the deep state, in a certain sense. For this reason it should not surprise us that we are witnessing the demolition of Faith and Morals in the name of ecumenism and synodality, applying liberal errors in the theological sphere; and on the other hand the transformation of the Papacy and the Roman Curia into a politburo in which ecclesiastical authority is both absolute and also released from its fidelity to the Magisterium, following the modalities of the exercise of power in a communist-type dictatorship. The law is no longer founded on Justice but rather on the convenience and utility of those who apply it: it is enough to see how harshly the clergy and faithful who are traditional are treated by the Vatican, and on the other hand with how much indulgence the Vatican praises notorious pro-abortion activists (I am thinking of Biden and Pelosi among the most striking cases) as well as the propagandists of LGBTQ ideology and gender theory. Here too, liberalism and communism have formed an alliance to demolish the institution from within, just as has happened in the civil sphere. But we know that contra legem fit, quod in fraudem legis fit – that which circumvents the law is done against the law.

Your Excellency, how do you think things in the United States can change in the near future?

The eventual return of Donald Trump to the White House would allow for real peace negotiations, once the deep state has been eradicated from the Administration and government agencies. But the reconstruction will certainly require the collaboration and sacrifices of everyone, and a solid spiritual vision that inspires the reconstruction of the social fabric. If all of this has happened through the demonstrated electoral fraud of the last Presidential election, Trump’s victory would be even more striking and would have strong repercussions on the ramifications of the deep state in Europe and in particular in Italy.

In any case, the mid-term elections could allow the Republicans to have a majority in the House and in the Senate, once the servants of the deep state – including first of all the “neo-cons” – have been ousted.

The failure of the effort to blame Trump for the farce of the assault on the Capitol ought to dissuade its organizers – among whom we cannot fail to number Nancy Pelosi – from trying to replicate the scene next fall, which would fall into the grotesque, in addition to being a case of déjà vu.

So has the Great Reset failed? Can we sing a victory song?

A victory song can be sung only when the war has been won. The Great Reset is ontologically destined for failure, because it is inspired by inhuman and diabolical principles. But its end, however inevitable, may still take some time, depending on our capacity to oppose it and also what is contained in the plans of Divine Providence.

If the Lord wants to grant us a truce, a period of peace after we have understood how horrible is the hell on earth that the enemies of God and man desire, then we must commit ourselves to rebuild – not “build back better” but just the opposite – yes, rebuild what has been destroyed: the family, the bond of marriage, the moral education of children, love for our country, dedication to hard work, and fraternal charity, especially towards those who are the most defenseless and needy. We must reaffirm the holiness and untouchable sanctity of life from conception to natural death; defending the complementary nature of the two sexes against the insanity of gender ideology, protecting children from corruption and guaranteeing the innocence to which they are entitled. We must finally set aside the logic of profit – which is typical of the liberal mentality – in order to regain the pride of fulfilling our duty even when no one is watching us, of producing what we make in a professional mannerand selling it at an honest price. And we must stop considering ourselves inferior simply because someone has decided that in their godless model of dystopian society being honest, loyal, sincere, and God-fearing is something to be ashamed of. The ones who ought to be ashamed, rather, are those who call for the killing of children and the elderly, the planned extermination of the population through wicked vaccine campaigns, mass sterilization, sodomy, pedophilia, and all the most deviant aberrations. 

Your Excellency, do you believe that the world can return to God?

The world can and must return to God: this is a necessity dictated by the divine order that the Creator has imprinted on creation. It must return to God, because only where Christ reigns can there by true justice and true peace. And the world can do this, but not in a collectivist or communitarian vision in which individuals disappear into the mass, but rather in a personal and individual vision, in which each one of us freely recognizes that nothing can be better than what Our Heavenly Father has prepared for us, since He loves us and wants to make us sharers in His glory.

If we all return to God, our Nations will also recognize His Lordship and will conform their laws to His Law. Let us pray therefore that what the Psalmist sings may be realized: Laudate Dominum omnes gentes; laudate eum omnes populi (Ps 116:1)– Praise the Lord, all you nations, praise him all you peoples. Quoniam confirmata est super nos misericordia ejus; et veritas Domini manet in æternum (Ps 116:2) – For his Mercy is confirmed upon us, and the Truth of the Lord remains forever.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

21 June 2022, Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

TiLTNews Network

Dr. Swain: Black And White America Want Same Thing, To Take Care Of Family And Claim American Dream

TiLTNews Network

Dr. Swain: Black And White America Want Same Thing, To Take Care Of Family And Claim American Dream

Source: Dr. Swain: Black And White America Want Same Thing, To Take Care Of Family And Claim American Dream

TiLTNews Network

Part 1 – Was January 6th violence A Ukrainian Military Special Operation To destroy Donald Trump?

TiLTNews Network

by George EliasonMay 7, 20221824439

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR, Truth Social

That question by itself is a mouthful considering the political climate in 2022. Given the secretive nature of a “military spec op” and the degree of difficulty investigating the kind of action where all traces need to point away from the actors, I need to disclose how I got to the place where this question became the only obvious one I can ask.

The following will show circumstantially and logically why this wrinkle in the J6 investigation deserves qualified eyes on it to further and finish or put it to bed once and for all.

If you’ve followed the J6 investigation at all you’re familiar with this image. XRVision’s report on Sergei Dybynyn went viral across media. Directly after the event, I was contacted by XRVison’s CEO Jacob Applebaum to confirm the ID and build Dybynyn’s profile which is all the information known about this man and his motivation at Capitol Hill on January 6th.

As an investigative journalist, it’s not out of the ordinary to be contacted like this. I’ve been contacted on an irregular basis for different types of issues over the years by attorneys, private concerns, groups, companies, and security experts over the years on issues ranging from personal safety to national and international issues.

The single most important point across the board is understanding the limits of the work. There’s a line between investigative journalism or reports, and official criminal investigations.

Crossing that line as a journo could corrupt a criminal investigation. The most obvious way is allowing perps to clean up before criminal investigators have a chance to look at it.

The above lead-in is meant to show how seriously I take these threads of investigation.

Disclosure- I live and work out of Donbass which has been at war with Ukraine for the last 8 years.

It puts me in the weird position of wishing the evidence trace led to a different group and a different country because of current events. January 6th was a breach of national security with the approval of Washington leadership.

There isn’t any other explanation for the lack of preparedness, lack of police personnel onsite by anti-Trump Congressional leaders in charge of the Sargent-at-Arms, and refusal to call in the National Guard which after all the hoopla was over was found to be a phone call away.

We don’t do domestic [intelligence] collection,”Jonathan Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesman said. “We rely on Capitol Police and federal law enforcement to provide an assessment of the situation. And based on that assessment that they had, they believed they had sufficient personnel and did not make a request.”

At first blush, I traced the obvious which was the violence at Trump rallies back to 2017 in Charlottesville to start building a pattern that opened into a starting point.

Initially, the most striking aspect of the January 6th riot was the two-month lead-up to the event. All the headlines read like – Trump rally violence, Proud Boys rally violence, Trump rally stabbings, etc. Other than selective articles, the perps are hidden and tone and context point to “everything Trump” and “far-right” as the originator of the violence even though the perpetrators of most of the violence were Antifa/BLM groups.

Going back to spring 2016, we see the emergence of “right-wing” nationalists. One of the more notable is Richard Spencer who came in at the right time to make a media splash he knew would hurt the Trump campaign. The Trump-far right- nationalist story was born.

After the damage was done, he denounced Trump and in 2020 voted for Joe Biden because the nationalist policies of the DNC were much closer to his. Spencer’s people were visibly absent on January 6th.

Mathew Heimbach’s legal defense for the 2017 Charlottesville violence was built around “Donald Trump told me to do it,” and “Donald Trump should pay my legal fees.”

In 2020, Heimbach renounced nationalism/fascism publically until July 2021. Heimbach was an initial suspect for J6 by many investigators but his groups for some magical reason didn’t participate.

This struck me as odd as an athlete winning all the accolades they could at local, state, and national levels refusing to participate in the Olympics even though they were guaranteed the gold.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!

Discrediting Donald Trump at J6 was the gold Heimbach and his groups were working for. Their goal from 2016 onward was discrediting Donald Trump as a right-wing extremist.

The short paragraphs above lead to a point of methodology I used after finding enough of a pattern to suspect a military op. When there are no positive confessions or onsite IDs made, you start investigating the negative space at the peripheries of the event.

In the case of Heimbach, he wasn’t there. All stop on that count. The negative space inquiry starts by asking why? Did they know something? Both are plank holders in the push nationalism at all costs, ie, destroy Trump and push Biden groups.

Nationalism is fascism at the top and socialism maintains the lower class at the bottom. Rising is based on your commitment to the party structure.

The 2nd important point is at the beginning of any inquiry, ignore the obvious and try to prove the visibly egregious possible perps innocence at the start. If nothing else, this cuts down the number of possible actors and motives involved as you progress.

Antifa’s involvement in J6 is an example of this. Videos show a small group that looks like Antifa changing into “pro” Trump attire and Jake Sullivan became the poster boy of Antifa’s non-involvement.

Destroying Donald Trump was a primary goal of this group beginning in late 2016 after the election. Antifa/BLM understand the power of violence and what it would do for Donald Trump’s chances of getting a fair hearing in the Senate over the election. Yet again, we have negative space. Antifa/BLM involvement wasn’t enough directly to go beyond a few anecdotes.

Considering the amount of violence all the groups perpetrated over the last two years, specifically during the months leading up to the J6 hearing, they seemed to miss their shining moment.

What about MAGA? Outside of the involvement of these groups which can be traced to infiltrating the Trump campaign in 2016 or responding to assault from these groups, MAGA supporters have been peaceful.

So what changed leading into January 6th, 2021?

We have three very obvious suspects to ignite violence and they all opted out. This is the negative space I started looking into. These three groups have to be in concert with a fourth besides supporting the DNC and Biden-Harris.

This fourth group needs to have the clout with the first three groups to make them willing nonparticipants. To do this, it also needs the capability of instigating large group violence, controlling it, the ability to step it up to extreme levels, participating where needed, and remaining unseen participants doing so.

What major point of commonality do Antifa, BLM, and White nationalists have to make this union possible?

All three groups are nationalists (fascists). In this article, I detailed the following highlights about Antifa and BLM.

  1. Antifa works with Right Sector and Azov Battalion in Ukraine. Their Pirate Party affiliation makes them part of the “Greens” coalition current German Foreign Minister Baerbock subscribes to.
  2. The Greens represent both the Pirate Party/Antifa and Ukrainian Azov and Right Sector concerns in the EU Parliament. InformNapalm is a Right Sector information operation group.

  1. BLM and Antifa are Julius Evola fascists like the Ukrainian nationalists

Recategorizing BLM and Antifa from their self-proclaimed socialism is a leap for some people until you realize the Waffen SS was a subgroup of the original Antifa in Germany. That’s detailed in the link above.

But what about BLM? Shown here, BLMs tied to another modern Julius Evola fascist group called ISIS to make the point clear. ISIS leaders are students of 1930s Italian fascist philosophy rather than Islam.

Spencer and Heimbach’s groups openly follow fascist philosophy which is based again on Evola.

For the nationalist, there is no enemy outside your country, the enemy is always within. Outside threats make nationalist control over people easier. Dissent from within is the problem. That single reality should clear up a few myths about Biden.

So now we have a common tie between groups outside the nationalist Democratic Party. If you peruse the two articles in detail, Antifa and BLM are both tied to the Ukrainian lobby in WDC and both directly to Ukraine’s Azov Battalion and Right Sector through the Diaspora nationalists filling their ranks and elevating the violence during their riots.

Heimbach’s “Traditionalist” ideology has a base in Julius Evola’s fascism.

This is James Nolan Mason, chief ideologue for Atomwaffen, a US-based Nazi group Heimbach is affiliated.

“[Atomwaffen Division] are good friends of ours.”– Matthew Heimbach, on Discord, Nov. 22, 2017

So we see this so-called pro-Russian nationalist has more in common with Azov than he does with the Kremlin. Heimbach’s National Bolshevism (read national socialism) aligns with groups that want to overthrow the current government in Moscow. The civil war in Ukraine brought them into a semi-alignment but it is a single issue.


TiLTNews Network

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide, It’s Really True: They Know they are Killing the Babies

TiLTNews Network

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide

It’s Really True: They Know they are Killing the Babies

Dr Naomi Wolf

May 29

I’ve been silent for some weeks. Forgive me.

The truth is: I’ve been rendered almost speechless — or the literary equivalent of that — because recently I’ve had the unenviable task of trying to announce to the world that indeed, a genocide — or what I’ve called, clumsily but urgently, a “baby die-off” — is underway.

The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Volunteers, a group of 3000 highly credentialled doctors, RNs, biostatisticians, medical fraud investigators, lab clinicians and research scientists, have been turning out report after report, as you may know, to tell the world what is in the 55,000 internal Pfizer documents which the FDA had asked a court to keep under wraps for 75 years. By court order, these documents were forcibly disclosed. And our experts are serving humanity by reading through these documents and explaining them in lay terms. You can find all of the Volunteers’ reports on

The lies revealed are stunning.

The WarRoom/DailyClout Volunteers have confirmed: that Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew by December 2020 that the MRNA vaccines did not work — that they “waned in efficacy” and presented “vaccine failure.” One side effect of getting vaccinated, as they knew by one month after the mass 2020 rollout, was “COVID.”

Pfizer knew in May of 2021 that 35 minors’ hearts had been damaged a week after MRNA injection — but the FDA rolled out the EUA for teens a month later anyway, and parents did not get a press release from the US government about heart harms til August of 2021, after thousands of teens were vaccinated. []

Pfizer (and thus the FDA; many of the documents say “FDA: CONFIDENTIAL” at the lower boundary) knew that, contrary to what the highly paid spokesmodels and bought-off physicians were assuring people, the MRNA, spike protein and lipid nanoparticles did not stay in the injection site in the deltoid, but rather went, within 48 hours, into the bloodstream, from there to lodge in the liver, spleen, adrenals, lymph nodes, and, if you are a woman, in the ovaries. []

Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew that the Moderna vaccine had 100 mcg of MRNA, lipid nanoparticles and spike protein, which was more than three times the 30 mcg of the adult Pfizer dose; the company’s internal documents show a higher rate of adverse events with the 100 mcg dose, so they stopped experimenting with that amount internally due to its “reactogenicity” — Pfizer’s words — but no one told all of the millions of Americans who all got the first and second 100 mcg Moderna dose, and the boosters.

Pfizer skewed the trial subjects so that almost three quarters were female — a gender that is less prone to cardiac damage. Pfizer lost the records of what became of hundreds of their trial subjects.

In the internal trials, there were over 42,000 adverse events and more than 1200 people died. Four of the people who died, died on the day they were injected.

Adverse events tallied up in the internal Pfizer documents are completely different from those reported on the CDC website or announced by corrupted physicians and medical organizations and hospitals. These include vast columns of joint pain, muscle pain (myalgia), masses of neurological effects include MS, Guillain Barre and Bell’s Palsy, encephaly, every iteration possible of blood clotting, thrombocytopenia at scale, strokes, hemorrhages, and many kinds of ruptures of membranes throughout the human body. The side effects about which Pfizer and the FDA knew but you did not, include blistering problems, rashes, shingles, and herpetic conditions (indeed, a range of blistering conditions oddly foreshadowing the symptoms of monkeypox).

The internal documents show that Pfizer (and thus the FDA) knew that angry red welts or hives were a common reaction to the PEG, a petroleum-derived allergen in the vaccine ingredients — one that you are certainly not supposed to ingest. Indeed, PEG is an allergen so severe that many people can go into anaphylactic shock if they are exposed to it. But people with a PEG allergy were not warned away from the vaccines or even carefully watched by their doctors, EpiPen in hand. They were left to their shock.

Pfizer knew that “exposure” to the vaccine was defined — in their own words – as sexual contact (especially at time of conception), skin contact, inhalation or lactation. []. ‘Fact-checkers’ can deny this all they want. The documents speak for themselves.

Of course, people who have tried to raise any of these issues have been deplatformed, scolded by the President, called insane, and roundly punished.

Athletes and college students and teenagers are collapsing on football and soccer fields. Doctors wring their hands and express mystification. But BioNTech’s SEC filing shows a fact about which the CDC and the AMA breathe not a word: fainting so violently that you may hurt yourself is one of the side effects important enough for BioNTech to highlight to the SEC.

But not to highlight to you and me.

I was able to process all of this and keep simply reporting. But in the last few weeks the horror overcame me. Because now, the Volunteers, under the excellent leadership of Program Manager Amy Kelly, have confirmed that there is a genocide underway, intentionally driven or not. And Israeli journalist Etana Hecht has added her own superb analysis. Here is Ms Hecht’s summary of the Volunteers’ findings:

Clown World – Honk

Vaccinated Women

The topic of pregnant and nursing moms getting vaccinated under encouragement and coercion is painful. It’s painful to research, painful to write about, and painful to learn how carelessly the most precious among us are being treated. The very essence of life and nature live within pregnant and nursing mothers. Reflecting on how little regard was paid t…

Read more

4 days ago · 129 likes · 29 comments · Etana Hecht

It seems that there can indeed be a happenstance genocide. Reproduction itself is targeted, intentionally or not, by the mRNA vaccines. And if you know that reproduction is harmed, and babies and fetuses are harmed, and you know that this is at scale, which everyone at Pfizer and at the FDA who read these documents, knew —and if you do not stop — then does that not ultimately become a genocide?

The WarRoom/DailyClout volunteers have confirmed that lipid nanoparticles, the tiny hard fatty casings that contain the MRNA, traverse the amniotic membrane. That means that they enter the fetal environment, of course. (They also traverse the blood-brain barrier, which may help explain the post-MRNA vaccination strokes and cognitive issues we are seeing). The Volunteers have drilled deep into the Pfizer documents’ reports about pregnancy and found that the assurance that the vaccine is “safe and effective” for pregnant women, was based on a study of 44 French rats, followed for 42 days (the scientists who ran the study are shareholders or employees of BioNTech). []

The Volunteers found that while pregnant women were excluded from the internal studies, and thus from the EUA on which basis all pregnant women were assured the vaccine was “safe and effective”, nonetheless about 270 women got pregnant during the study. More than 230 of them were lost somehow to history. But of the 36 pregnant women whose outcomes were followed – 28 lost their babies.

The Volunteers found that a baby died after nursing from a vaccinated lactating mother, and was found to have had an inflamed liver. Many babies nursing from vaccinated mothers showed agitation, gastrointestinal distress, and failure to thrive (to grow), and were inconsolable.

I am hearing anecdotal reports of these symptoms in babies nursing from vaccinated mothers, now, from across the country.

The Pfizer documents also show that some vaccinated mothers had suppressed lactation, or could produce no milk at all.

Doctors, of course, are stumped by all this. Stumped.

The NIH database has a preprint study making the case that there are negligible amounts of PEG in the breast milk of vaccinated women. []

But what is a negligible amount of a petroleum product in mother’s milk, when you are a tiny newborn with no immunities, just arriving in the world? The NIH preprint itself reported higher levels of GI distress and sleeplessness in the infants studied, and one mother had elevated PEG levels in breast milk, and the fine print concludes that more study is needed:

“Larger studies are needed to increase our understanding of transfer of PEG into human milk, and potential effects after ingestion by the infant. Although expert consensus states there is minimal or no potential risk for the infant from maternal COVID-19 vaccination(20,21), the minor symptoms that were reported (sleep changes and gastrointestinal symptoms) could be further investigated in future studies to determine if they are related to vaccination.”

Since no babies died in the brief time frame of the tiny study, the study concluded that nursing babies suffered no real ill effects from vaccinated mothers. But the study did not follow these poor babies, with their acknowledged sleeplessness and their confirmed GI distress, to see if they actually “thrived” — gained weight and developed normally.

On such faulty science were women assured that the vaccines were “safe and effective” for them and their nursing babies.

But — four of the lactating vaccinated women in the Pfizer documents reported “blue-green” breast milk. I am not making this up. And the nursing baby who died, with an inflamed liver — the case has been buried; has not made headlines.

Coincidentally — or not — the SAME FDA that turned a blind eye to vast harms to humans, and to the subcategory of moms and babies, in the Pfizer documents, declared that Abbot, a major producer of baby formula in the US, had to close its factory. []

Coincidentally, with little formula available and with some or many (we don’t know) vaccinated moms having compromised breast milk, it turns out that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg have all invested in a startup called “BioMilq” — which produces lab grown breast milk from mammary cells. []. Reports of this startup include this Frankenstein-like language as if this is normal: “The BIOMILQ team creates its product from cells taken from human breast tissue and milk, donated by women in the local community, who get a Target giftcard in return.” []

As if all of this is not horrific enough, Ms Hecht drew studies from three countries — Canada, Scotland and now Israel – -to show that babies are dying disproportionately, during and after 2021, in highly vaccinated countries, and that newborns are dying disproportionately if they have vaccinated mothers versus unvaccinated mothers.

In highly vaccinated Scotland, almost twice the number of babies died in 2021 as died in baseline numbers. []. In Ontario, Canada, 86 babies died in 2021, versus a baseline of four or five; this was a baby die-off so severe that a brave Parliamentarian brought the issue to Parliament. [].

In Israel, at RamBam Hospital in Haifa, there were 34% more spontaneous abortions and stillbirths to vaccinated women as to unvaccinated women.

Jackanapes Junction

Stillbirths, Miscarriages and Abortions in Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Women

Data from Rambam hospital in Haifa reveal a stillbirth, miscarriage and abortion (SBMA) rate of 6% among women who never received a COVID-19 vaccine, compared to 8% among women who were vaccinated with at least one dose (and never had a SARS-Cov-2 infection…

Read more

4 months ago · 59 likes · 62 comments · Josh Guetzkow

Ms Hecht also notes that menstrual dysregulation in vaccinated women is fully confirmed now by many studies, with an average of one extra day of bleeding a month (a side effect about which I warned about in March of 2021, which in turn got me called names by a CNN commentator and permanently deplatformed from Twitter).

You don’t have to know more than eighth grade biology to know that a dysregulated menstrual cycle, not to mention spike protein accumulating in the ovaries, not to mention the traversing of the bodies’ membranes, including the amniotic sac, by tiny hard fatty lipid nanoparticles, not to mention PEG in breast milk, is all going to affect fertility, fetal health, childbirth, and babies’ GI wellbeing or distress, and thus their ability or failure to thrive (let alone to bond).

And now, the babies are dying. Now scale the data from Canada, Scotland and Israel to all the vaccinated nations in the world.

What do we do with all of this?

Knowing as I now do, that Pfizer and the FDA knew that babies were dying and mothers’ milk discoloring by just looking at their own internal records; knowing as I do that they did not alert anyone let alone stop what they were doing, and that to this day Pfizer, the FDA and other demonic “public health” entities are pushing to MRNA-vaccinate more and more pregnant women; now that they are about to force this on women in Africa and other lower income nations who are not seeking the MRNA vaccines, per Pfizer CEO Bourla this past week at the WEF, and knowing that Pfizer is pushing and may even receive a US EUA for babies to five year olds — I must conclude that we are looking into an abyss of evil not seen since 1945.

So I don’t know about you, but I must switch gears with this kind of unspeakable knowledge to another kind of discourse.

I am not saying that this is exactly like finding evidence of Dr Mengele’s experiments; but I am saying, with these findings, that now the comparison may not be that excessive. These anti-humans at Pfizer, speaking at the WEF; these anti-humans at the FDA; knowing what they know; are targeting the miraculous female body, with its ability to conceive, gestate, birth and nurture life. They are targeting the female body’s ability to sustain a newborn human being with nothing but itself. They are targeting the amniotic membrane, the ovaries that release the ovum, they are targeting the lymph and blood that help support the building up of mother’s milk, they are targeting the fetus in utero, helpless.

They are targeting the human fetus’ very environment, one of the most sacred spaces on this earth, if not the most sacred.

And they know it.

I don’t know about you, and I am not proselytizing, but as you may know if you read me here, these apocalyptic days, I turn to prayer. I have started to say in public, once I had to face the fact of the die-off of the babies, that this is a Biblical time; and I mean Old Testament Biblical.

It is a time like that of the construction of the Tower of Babel — of massive arrogance against divine plans. Men such Bill Gates tamper with and seek to outdo God’s best works in lab after lab, and Tech Bros “disrupt” the human competition for their unsought-after goods and services, by targeting human processes and by ruining the bodies made in the image of God.

It is a time like that when the ten plagues assailed the Egyptians in Exodus 11:4-6:

“4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt.5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7”

This was the worst plague of all, the slaying of the firstborn.

It is a time of ha-Satan — Satan — “going to and fro in the earth, and […] walking up and down in it”, as Job 2 describes him.

It is a time of demons sauntering around in human spaces, though they look human enough themselves, smug in their Italian suits on panels at the World Economic Forum.

Ha-Satan – and his armies: ruining the conception, the milk, the menses, the touch, the cradling of the infant by its mother, ruining the feeding of the infant; ruining the babies themselves.

I read the Prophets a lot these days — because how could I not? I am looking for what writer Annie Lamott called “Operating Instructions.” What do you do when humanity itself is threatened? When there are professional battalions and bureaucratic departments of people who act with anathema toward the human race?

Surely there must be a clue.

So I reread the story of Noah, and the Book of Esther, a lot these days; I reread Jeremiah.

We’ve been here before. Embarrassingly often, when it comes to that.

The story is always the same, at least in the Hebrew Bible (in the New Testament, of course, God skips to the end and upends the plot).

At least in the Hebrew Bible, God is always trying to get our attention, always, it seems, simply asking us just to walk alongside him; simply asking us to keep his not–too-challenging commandments; not, indeed, asking a lot.

Jeremiah 1:13:

The word of the Lord came to me again: “What do you see?”

“I see a pot that is boiling,” I answered. “It is tilting toward us from the north.”

14 The Lord said to me, “From the north disaster will be poured out on all who live in the land. 15 I am about to summon all the peoples of the northern kingdoms,” declares the Lord.

“Their kings will come and set up their thrones
    in the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem;
they will come against all her surrounding walls
    and against all the towns of Judah.
16 I will pronounce my judgments on my people
    because of their wickedness in forsaking me,
in burning incense to other gods
    and in worshiping what their hands have made.”

In the Hebrew Bible, anyway, the math is simple. We turn, we listen, and we are saved; or we carry on heedlessly, worshipping what our own hands have made, sluts to other gods — to “the science,” to media lies; to the narcissism of convention, these days, one might say — and thus we are lost.

We have been nearly lost, time after time after time.

This time could really be the last time; these monsters in the labs, on the transnational panels, are so very skillful; and so powerful; and their dark work is so extensive.

If God is there — again — after all the times that we have tried his patience — and who indeed knows? – will we reach out a hand to him in return, will we take hold in the last moment out of this abyss, and simply find a way somehow to walk alongside him?

Or will we this time, in losing the babies, and heedlessly carrying on nonetheless — be truly lost ourselves?

Subscribe to Outspoken with Dr Naomi Wolf

Hundreds of paid subscribers

Essays, updates and arguments from an eyewitness to a new dark age, with thoughts on how to keep liberty, justice and human rights alive.


TiLTNews Network

Resist the Technocracy!

TiLTNews Network

Salvo’s Joe Allen Takes Stand Against Elon Musk and Subversion of Humanity


A post on Transhumanism from the blog

by Salvo February 15, 2022

Salvo‘s Joe Allen and Steve Bannon hit Elon Musk pretty hard in two recent broadcasts at Bannon’s “War Room.” In the broadcasts, which aired on the 1st and 4th of this month, Allen characterized Musk as a Trojan Tesla with an army of robots hiding inside.

Before dismissing this a mere fearmongering, consider…

Men of vision have enormous impacts on civilizations, and our man Musk envisions a world supported by an automated workforce, universal autonomous vehicles, a humanoid robot slave class, a god-like AI that will threaten humanity, an implantable brain chip that will protect us from it, and a civilizational escape hatch to Mars.

It’s hard to believe any person would think these are ideal ways of life, sound philosophies, or prescriptions for human flourishing, but young tech bros and grifters looking for Musk bucks can’t get enough.

For details, see these two editions of the “War Room”:

In a more recent episode that aired last Friday, Bannon and Allen discussed Allen’s recent Salvo article, “Killing Us Softly: Klaus Schwab’s “Great Narrative” For The Global Borg,” where Allen explains how the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum sees COVID-19 as an “opportunity” to accelerate the “convergence of the physical, digital and biological worlds.”

Joe Allen is Salvo‘s front man on the scene covering this envisioned technocracy so that we can be better informed about what’s being foisted on us unawares and how we can resist getting swept up in it. If you’re interested in learning more about it, look for him at the following conferences this spring:

Further Reading:

* Salvo does not necessarily endorse the content of these conferences. We mention them simply as an opportunity for readers who may be interested in hearing and meeting Joe Allen.

SalvoSUBSCRIBE TO BLOG VIA EMAIL Copyright © 2022 Salvo | www.salvomag.com

TiLTNews Network

Legal Fight Brewing Over Steve Bannon’s Academy in Italian Monastery

TiLTNews Network

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Courthouse News Service

Try our Docket Alerts or Log in

Legal Fight Brewing Over Steve Bannon’s Academy in Italian Monastery

Steve Bannon plans to turn a 13th century Italian monastery outside of Rome into an “Academy for the Judeo-Christian West,” where he can mold cultural and political “gladiators” to carry out his fight against liberal elites, Islam and socialists. But Italy’s culture minister thanks that might not be such a good idea and is seeking to stop Bannon’s plans.

CAIN BURDEAU / August 27, 2019

TRISULTI CHARTERHOUSE, Italy (CN) – When Steve Bannon comes to Italy, he likes to make his way to this walled monastery hidden away from the world in the mountains south of Rome. Bannon, the globetrotting advocate of right-wing nationalism and former chief strategist for candidate and then President Donald Trump, has ambitions for this magnificent relic of medieval monastic life: He sees the old abbey one day functioning as his “Academy for the Judeo-Christian West,” a place where he can mold cultural and political “gladiators” to carry out his fight against liberal elites, Islam and socialists.

Think of it as a cauldron from which mini-Bannons and mini-Trumps might be released onto the world with a seal of approval to lead nationalist causes.

Bannon’s project is moving ahead despite the Italian culture minister’s move in May to revoke a license to operate the monastery for 19 years. The license was awarded to a conservative religious think tank tied to Bannon. Now a legal fight appears set to take place.

“The ministry has no grounds whatsoever to revoke the license or to annul the lease,” said Benjamin Harnwell, director of the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, the think tank that runs the monastery.

Harnwell called Culture Minister Alberto Bonisoli’s actions “politically motivated.” Bonisoli is a member of the 5-Star Movement, an anti-establishment party with left-wing tendencies.

“I am looking forward to clearing our name and fighting as forcefully as possible when this gets to court,” Harnwell said inside the monastery in an interview with Courthouse News. He expected any legal fight to take a long time, possibly years, considering Italy’s complicated legal system.

The ministry charged that Harnwell’s think tank, which took possession of the monastery in January, has failed to pay rent and perform renovations as promised. Harnwell dismissed those allegations as untrue.

“If they [the ministry] don’t go to court, we will,” Harnwell said. “They’ve damaged our image.”

The ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment. As of July, Harnwell said the ministry had not formally ordered his institute to leave the premises.

In the meantime, Harnwell said Bannon’s visions for a nationalist academy are moving forward. He said his institute will provide more information about the academy’s courses, curriculum and degrees this autumn.

It’s not hard to imagine Bannon’s academy taking shape inside the cloister, churches, courtyards and nooks and crannies of the Trisulti Charterhouse, a 13th-century monastery.

In recent years as the monastery’s remaining monks died, the Italian government sought a new purpose for the charterhouse, which is owned by the Italian state and open to the public. The monks here tended to a prodigious collection of medicinal herbs and concocted sambuca, a sweet anise-flavored liqueur.

“For many years now it had lost its religious function,” said Giorgio Liberatori, an architect in the nearby town of Collepardo. “It was inevitable that it had to change hands.”

Liberatori said he and others in Collepardo are not opposed to Bannon’s academy taking up quarters in the monastery. He said no one else had showed much interest in the charterhouse. As for Bannon and his radical ideas, he said time would tell how having his academy close to Collepardo might affect the town. But he added: “The average citizen doesn’t care.”

Harnwell said Bannon’s academy will be housed in the former cloister, a secluded area where monks once lived in simple rooms, engrossed in prayer and silence.

Harnwell said about 1,500 people have applied, but there is space now for only about 25 students. In time, though, there could be room for as many 350 students, he said.

“Like the old monastic orders — the religious orders — would form a person into a monk, Steve wants to form someone who comes here and turn them into a gladiator,” Harnwell said. “Steve’s expression is that this is a gladiator school for culture warriors.”

These prospective “culture warriors” would be people who feel intuitively that Judeo-Christian ideas are under attack,” Harnwell said.

In a broad-ranging interview, Harnwell — a 43-year-old Englishman of working-class roots who’s worked as a Conservative Party political aide in the House of Commons and the European Parliament — went into depth about Bannon’s self-defines populist nationalist worldview, and his own views, which he characterized as libertarian and “anarcho-capitalist.”

This remote Italian monastery, where the occasional chime of bells breaks the silence, is an unlikely setting for an instruction into the thinking not only of Bannon but of Trump, who adheres to Bannon’s theories.

Harnwell denounced Islam, calling it a dangerous militant religion bent on imposing its will on others. He praised far-right leaders Britain’s Nigel Farage, who championed Brexit, and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s anti-immigrant interior minister. Salvini, he said, was Italy’s “savior.”

He called global warming a fairy tale. On government, he said it needs to be stripped away to allow capitalism to flourish. On wealth, he said there was too much envy of the rich and called policies to redistribute wealth a disaster.

An unabashed admirer of Bannon, Harnwell called him “the smartest guy” he’d ever met “without anyone being a close second.”

He said Bannon’s fundamental insight is to see politics not in a “pure left and right paradigm” but “a vertical paradigm” where “the ordinary working guy [is] being shafted by the working elites.”

“I would say that Steve’s view basically is that the little guy should have a seat at the table,” Harnwell said.

He said Trump was “the first person to win election explicitly on the Bannon paradigm” rather than a left-right paradigm. “That’s Steve’s genius,” he said.

Bannon aims to make government work for the ordinary person, Harnwell said. That, according to Bannon, is done by “deconstructing” an “administrative state” that benefits only so-called elites: politicians, financiers, intellectuals, contractors, university professors and others who gain their wealth through government policies designed to benefit the elite class.

“The state exists not to help the ordinary working guy but to help first and foremost, to benefit, the people who comprise of it and work for it,” Harnwell said. “It’s immoral.

“The elites have made themselves rich at your expense,” he said. “That’s not a Marxist paradigm here. It’s an argument that government has become too big and exists to promote the welfare of the people who work for it and the people who run it rather than the citizens.”

Harnwell said Bannon wants government to get out of people’s lives.

“Before the First World War, the only relationship most people had with the federal government was when they posted a letter,” he said. “Now it is omnipresent.”

He said the United States has “a unique role to play on the world stage” because it promotes liberty.

“So it is imperative, if you believe in liberty as I do, that that American experiment succeeds, that liberty can long endure on the face of the earth,” he said.

Harnwell said left-wing parties have abandoned their principle of “representing the ordinary worker.” For example, he said left-wing politicians now support immigrants over workers in their own countries. By doing that, he said, left-wing politicians are supporting people who will show up in a country and undercut that country’s manual workers.

“That’s not a left-wing party,” he said. He charged “the professional leftist party” doesn’t care about workers.

He argued that societies based around left-wing ideas are failures.

“All countries that are founded explicitly on social justice, economic justice principles are basket cases, empirically,” he said, and cited the example of Venezuela.

Yet he sees socialism on the rise in the West.

“Since the Second World War, I think society and the West has been shifting one degree to the left every generation,” he said.

“Here’s the irony, it’s after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is the global visible failure of communism in practice as a means of managing an economy, that those ideas then, basically unopposed, via, I think, national educating system enter the bloodstream of the culture,” he said.

“So most young people, say anyone who is under 25, will hold communist views, unless for some reason they have explicitly taken a position to avoiding that.”

Harnwell dismissed criticisms that Bannon is promoting racist and Fascist views.

“Steve points out Fascists worship the state,” he said. By contrast, he said Bannon wants the state to be curtailed. Yet at the same time, Harnwell said, Bannon wants the state “to be strong enough to protect its national integrity.”

In this view, a country “has the right and the duty” to stop “people coming in on a large scale and being trafficked in” across borders. he said. “The [U.S.] border is too porous.”

He said it was proper and moral to stop immigrants. “I don’t believe that’s against the principles of the Judeo-Christian West to do so.”

On Africa and its deep problems, which prompt so many people to look for refuge in Europe, he said the continent needs to adopt the Western model.

“We know in the West how to take people out of poverty. It’s not through socialist world distribution, it’s through promoting societies built on the rule of law, having independent judiciaries, having solid property rights as the bedrock of your society, of having an entrepreneurial society,” he said. “Africa is incredibly resource-rich. What it needs to do is imitate the West if it wants to move out of poverty. You can make that transformation in one or two generations if you embrace the right principles.”

He said many African nations suffer from “a strong element of cultural Marxism” that “blended into the bloodstream during the anti-colonial period.”

Harnwell, like Bannon, sees Islam as a major threat to the West.

He said the Prophet Muhammad was militant and anything but moderate. “Islam was on the attack for centuries from day one,” he said. “It’s clear that Islam has designs on Christendom.

“All major world religions, all of them apart from the Muslim religion, have a variation of the Golden Rule in them,” he said. “There is not a variation for the Golden Rule in the Muslim religion.

“Does Islam believe that the penalty for apostasy is death and does it believe that because that is what Muhammad said? Well, the answer is yes and yes,” he said. “It doesn’t sound so moderate to me.”

He added: “The majority of Muslims are moderate. But they are moderate because they choose not to implement certain key elements of their own religion in their personal lives.”

Asked about other threats he sees, Harnwell cited “militant secularism” because it “does not tolerate any discussion of Christian god in the political space.” He said humanity needs “Christian faith” to be able to “survive and indeed thrive.”

He then called “out-of-control” immigration an “existential threat.” He said that low birth rates in the West and increased immigration pose a “demographic challenge” that he sees as “an existential threat.”

He called the “debt structure” and “welfare commitments” of Western societies existential threats too.

“This form of capitalism which isn’t capitalism, that benefits the elites to the detriment of the ordinary worker, that is also an existential threat,” he said.

What about climate change?

“I would put anthropological climate change in the same category as I would put the tooth fairy and unicorns and Father Christmas and the abominable snowman,” he said.

He denied that science has proved climate change is happening.

“I would cite the data as the suggestion that anthropological climate change hasn’t been proven,” he said.

He said most scientists are supporting the idea of climate change out of financial interests.

They “get their money one way or another through government, and government loves the idea of climate change because it can put its tentacles into every aspect of society,” he said. “The government can get everywhere on the back of this.”

What about environmental degradation more generally?

His solution was putting more of the earth into private hands.

“Again, property rights,” he said. “What we tend to see is what we know in philosophy as the tragedy of the commons. It’s those resources which have no ownership, probably for ideological reasons, that are then exploited. People tend to care about the property they own.”

He dismissed concerns about growing inequality.

“This is why the socialists screw up on everything, because they see the economic pie as a given,” he said. “And therefore if you want poor people to have more, you’ve got to take more money from the rich and give it to the poor as a straight transfer. All that is going to do over the long term is take wealth out of the hands of people who know how to create it and give it to people who will only consume it. That’s not going make your economic territory richer.”

He said the notion that the economic pie cannot grow is mistaken.

“It doesn’t really matter, the inequality between say the top decimal and the poorest decimal,” he said. “The issue is: Do the poor have enough money to meet their needs and to improve their living condition generation by generation?

“Can you please tell me what the injustice is of letting some people who happen to be wealth creators keep more of their own property? Why is that considered morally wrong?”

He said that his views, and Bannon’s, are not far-right but echo longstanding centrist and conservative ideas. He said they are viewed as far right and extreme right because the media has demonized conservative ideas.

“What 50 years ago would have been considered centrist is now considered to be right wing, if not far right,” he said. “I don’t believe there is any great coalescence around extreme-right or far-right politics. I think it’s basically where most people would have been around the 1950s.”

He shrugged off accusations that Bannon, Trump and he are promoting racist ideas.

“Racist, anti-Semite, Fascist – Nazi, I’ve been called as well, publicly,” he said. “It doesn’t bother me at all. I learned it from Steve: Don’t give a shit about what people say about you. Just get on with what you have to do.”

He then set off for a tour of the monastery — kneeling as he went before altars inside the monastery.

All the while, he praised Bannon.

“It’s a school which is designed in his image and likeness,” he said.

The bells rang and the hour of lunch had arrived.

(Courthouse News reporter Cain Burdeau is based in the European Union.)

TiLTNews Network

PROOF: THE LEFT’S LOW KNOWS NO BOUNDS- Too good to fact-check? Academic journal publishes hoax on conservative takeover of higher ed

TiLTNews Network

Authors’ fake names even refer to famous 1996 hoax by physicist Alan Sokal and 2018 “grievance studies” project inspired by it.

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default]” NS = “” />

0:42 / 46:04

By Greg Piper  Updated: December 3, 2021 – 10:53pm

A prestigious academic journal has egg on its face for publishing a hoax paper that claimed to find widespread concerns about “undue” conservative influence in higher education.

“Right-wing money strongly appears to induce faculty and administrators … to believe that they are pressured to hire and promote people they regard as inferior candidates, to promote ideas they regard as poor, and to suppress people and ideas they regard as superior,” according to the abstract in Higher Education Quarterly.

Peer reviewers failed to perform basic due diligence on the paper submitted in April and approved in October, neglecting, for example, to verify that authors “Sage Owens” and “Kal Alvers-Lynde III” were UCLA professors as they claimed. Owens even used an encrypted email service for correspondence with the journal.

They didn’t check whether the conservative foundations named as active funders of higher education actually existed. The “Randy Eller Foundation” is made up, while the Olin Foundation shut down in 2005.

The author who goes by Owens told The Chronicle of Higher Education that the journal didn’t even ask to see their data: “Every page has some glaring errors.”

The authors’ stated names provide a clue when spelled as an acronym: “SOKAL III.” That indicates this is the second successful hoodwink tracing its inspiration to physicist Alan Sokal’s famous parody of leftist “gibberish” in the journal Social Text in 1996.

“We wanted to improve over previous hoaxes by publishing in what was supposed to be a reputable journal,” Owens wrote in an email to Just the News.

The first successful large-scale hoax inspired by Sokal was 2018’s “grievance studies” project, which got four papers published and another three accepted before The Wall Street Journal exposed the ruse. Among the subjects: “rape culture” in dog parks and a feminist version of Mein Kampf.

Philosopher Peter Boghossian, one of those pranksters, told Just the News he suspects the new hoax flew under the radar because the paper doesn’t make “vile” or “morally repugnant” claims. Its publication shows “the peer review process is irrevocably broken,” he wrote in a text message.

Boghossian, who left Portland State University this year to start a “cognitive liberty” group, announced a “reverse Q&A tour” Thursday in which he’ll quiz students on 15 campuses about “their experience with social justice and woke ideology in their classrooms.”

Tweet URL

‘Contradictory’ methodology

The paper fooled academics including Acadia University political scientist Jeffrey Sachs, who wrote a lengthy tweet thread sharing its findings even while urging followers to take it “with a grain of salt” and acknowledging the mystery around the authors.

“Rightwing donors are corrupting academia,” Sachs said, citing the purported survey of 2,000 professors and administrators that found a “far greater and more statistically significant” effect from conservative than from liberal donors.

One explanation might be that they “see rightwing/libertarian donors as being more ideological … and therefore that their money comes with strings attached,” Sachs summarized. It raises the question whether universities “have an obligation to reject money from rightwing sources.”

Tweet URL

The paper had “obvious errors, including an obviously improper regression model and data tables which could not possibly be derived from that model,” Owens told Just the News. “Any competent social scientist should spot such errors.”

Owens specifically called out Sachs for missing “the elementary errors, which suggest he is incompetent at basic econometrics.” Sachs didn’t respond to a request to rebut Owens.

The first person to question the article’s authenticity, according to Owens, was Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, who questioned Sachs about the “contradictory” methodology of the study.

Adler noted that contrary to the study’s assertions, conservative donations to higher ed “aren’t anywhere close” to those from liberals and that the Federalist Society does not give money to undergraduate departments.

Searches for the “Randy Eller Foundation” return nothing. “I was suspicious after spending less than 5 minutes with this paper,” Adler tweeted.

Tweet URL

‘Fun’ to stir up conspiracy theories

Following publicity, publisher Wiley & Sons retracted the paper in consultation with the journal’s editors, University College London’s Tatiana Fumasoli and VU University Amsterdam’s Christine Teelken.

The notice said the “data in the article has been identified as fabricated and the authors have not disclosed their true identities.” The paper remains live with a retraction watermark.

An unnamed Wiley spokesperson declined to answer how the article made it through peer review despite so many red flags, what went wrong and how it plans to remedy the goof.

“When the editors were first alerted to these claims, they acted quickly to investigate,” according to a statement attributed to the journal. “The actors behind this article appear to be engaging in a deliberate exercise to undermine the peer review process and disrupt the integrity of scholarly literature, which unfortunately remains an issue across our industry.”

Higher Education Quarterly is “committed to safeguarding the scholarly record, which is essential to advance the sound science that benefits us all.”

Owens told Just the News the spoof authors are “mostly curious about whether the editor in question will resign, given that this paper’s mathematics are absurd. The editor either did not read the paper or is incompetent at basic statistics.”

University of Georgia professor Robert Toutkoushian, a member of the journal’s editorial board, told the Chronicle “I had my doubts” when reading the paper following peer review. He cited the reported 83% survey response rate as a red flag.

Owens declined to specify whether they have successfully published other hoax papers, or provide more details about their identities.

“I can tell you that we are not Koch affiliated but that the UnKoch people will nevertheless believe this was a Koch conspiracy,” Owens said, referring to the billionaire philanthropist Charles Koch and his critics, including UnKoch My Campus. “We knew they would react that way and that is part of the fun.”

UnKoch My Campus Executive Director Justine Banks told the Chronicle that Owens asked them to share the hoax paper. The ruse failed that time: Banks’ group first asked UCLA if the authors were indeed affiliated.

TiLTNews Network

So, Biden gets his lower oil prices.. and lower gas prices… thanks to Russia!?

TiLTNews Network

Oil Crashes After OPEC+ To Proceed With Planned 400Kb/d Output Hike

Tyler Durden's Photo


THURSDAY, DEC 02, 2021 – 09:06 AM

An earlier trial balloon of a smaller 200k b/d production hike was been popped as Russia moves with a formal proposal for OPEC+ to lift oil output by 400,000 b/d for January, sending oil markets crashing.

Energy Intel’s Deputy Bureau Chief & Chief Opec Correspondent Amena Bakr confirms that “All ministers appear to be in agreement with an increment of 400k for Jan (i.e. a rollover of the current policy)” according to sources.

This is what was planned by OPEC+ but not what the market was ‘hoping’ for.

WTI plunged further on the headlines, tumbling to a $62 handle…

,,,and near 4-month-lows…

At about $66 a barrel, Brent is now down more than 20% from its October 25 peak of $86.70 barrel.

As a reminder, OPEC producers boosted output by 350,000 barrels a day in November, with the 10 countries bound by the output deal adding almost all those barrels. That’s bigger than the 254,000 barrel a day increase in their combined target, but still leaves them pumping less than they are permitted under the deal.

The new quotas are as follows…

Source: Amena Bakr

So, Biden gets his lower oil prices.. and lower gas prices… thanks to Russia!?

Thanks Vlad!

Source here

TiLTNews Network

House Republicans vow to not vote for increased debt ceiling

TiLTNews Network

Citing trillions of dollars of government spending proposed by Democrats, the 103 House Republicans promised not to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstance.

Source: House Republicans vow to not vote for increased debt ceiling

Over 100 Republicans in the House are vowing in a new letter that they will not vote to increase the debt ceiling — calling the issue a “problem created by Democrat spending.”

Citing trillions of dollars of government spending proposed by Democrats, the 103 House Republicans promised not to increase the debt ceiling under any circumstance, according to the letter obtained by Fox News.

“Democrats have embarked on a massive and unprecedented deficit spending spree. Without a single Republican vote, they passed a $1.9 trillion ‘Covid relief’ bill in March even though $1 trillion was still unspent from previous bipartisan Covid relief bills,” the letter said, also citing the recently passed $3.5 trillion budget resolution.

“In order for this spending to occur, our nation’s debt limit will have to be increased significantly,” it continued. “Because Democrats are responsible for the spending, they need to take responsibility for increasing the debt ceiling.”

The Republicans, led by Reps. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), vowed they will not increase the debt ceiling if it comes “through a stand alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle.”

Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Democrats that they should not expect any GOP support in raising the debt ceiling, after calling the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill “their latest socialist shopping list.”

Capitol building.Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called the Democrat-backed $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill “their latest socialist shopping list.” Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

“In just a few days, our colleagues will start ramming through yet another reckless taxing and spending spree. Trillions more in inflationary spending when families just want good jobs and stable prices. But there’s something funny happening,” McConnell said.

“Even as Democrats crow about how all this spending is so good and so needed, they’re petrified to vote for the credit limit increase that would make it possible,” he continued.

“Democrats are about to tell Republicans to go take a hike and start teeing up trillions more dollars in borrowing and spending without a single Republican vote. But at the same time they’re extolling the virtues of their latest socialist shopping list, they are afraid to up the limit on their credit card.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik.Reps. Elise Stefanik, Jim Banks, Dan Crenshaw and Andy Biggs have joined the Republican Study Committee Budget and Spending Task Force.Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

On July 31, the two-year suspension on the debt ceiling expired. Democrats have been weighing attaching the debt ceiling to a sweeping spending bill this fall, forcing Republicans to get on board.

“We should not default on our debts under any circumstances,” the GOP letter added.

“If Democrats threaten a default, it will only be because they refuse to vote for the debt ceiling increase necessitated by their own irresponsible spending. Democrats, at any time, have the power through reconciliation to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, and they should not be allowed to pretend otherwise.”

Monday’s letter comes as Democrats attempt to pass the budget resolution while facing a number of hurdles due to their razor-thin majorities in both chambers, with moderates expressing concerns about the price tag and progressives pushing for numerous controversial provisions to be included in the final reconciliation package.

Last Tuesday, the budget’s blueprint was passed 220-212, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) convinced 10 Republicans to support the bill’s framework. While the massive spending bill has yet to be written, last week’s vote allows Democrats to move forward.

TiLTNews Network

CORTES: Mass Migration Was Never Part Of America’s $2 Trillion Afghan Debacle.

TiLTNews Network


Source HERE.
Migration to the United States should exist for one purpose only: to enhance the prosperity and security of existing American citizens, whether native-born or legally naturalized.

This statement should not actually be controversial. To many on the Left, however, immigration is either some intrinsically inherent and pure good, or a cudgel with which to batter American culture and identity. For globalists, mass migration must be embraced, as a means to cheap labor and free votes, but now also as a matter of “social justice”. Because nothing says “equity” like stripping impoverished nations of their labor force and working them to the bone before sending them back to their American ghettoes.

This folly drives the present, dangerous rush for America to welcome hundreds of thousands of Afghans fleeing the ongoing civil war in their country as the Taliban takes over most of that land. After two decades, thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars expended by America in Afghanistan, what debts do we owe that country and its people?

For those who took material risk to assist American operations there, surely our country can assist their safe removal from immediate danger. We have many bases in the region, plus allies nearby who share cultural and religious traits with these migrants and can provide refuge. But not one of these Afghans should be coming to America. That was never the deal.

In a time of pandemic and a fast-rising economic anxiety, the present is no time to welcome vast amounts of refugees into America, many of whom will require enormous resources from taxpayers.

When I tweeted out a picture of a record-setting American airlift jam-packed with Afghanis, making the point that no American town should be burdened with this influx of largely unskilled and unvetted young men from the other side of the world, blue-check Twitter was predictably aghast.

A simple (and widely-held) opinion earned condemnation from the likes of former CIA Chief Michael Hayden, anti-gun activist David Hogg, and CNN’s Jake Tapper who used a Bible reference from the Gospel of Matthew in response to me. Strange times when a host of that network, who is married to a former operative for Planned Parenthood, uses Christian scripture to try to shame others.

MUST READ: CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

No one, though, addressed what the picture makes clear: the plane is packed with young, Afghani men. The best thing for that country would be for these young men to stay and save their homeland, to fight the Taliban and establish civil society. But if they choose to leave, settlement here in America should not be offered.

One huge reason: we cannot be blind to the awful experience of Europe in recent years trying to deal with a massive influx of Afghan refugees who have created enormous costs for citizens there and committed heinous crimes against Europeans. Just this summer, a 13-year-old girl was raped and murdered in Austria. Three Afghan immigrant men are charged with that horrific crime, creating a national scandal in Austria.

Speaking about this issue, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz observed, “We cannot solve Afghanistan’s problems by taking in large numbers of people into Germany and Austria, as in 2015. We have to improve the situation on the ground. If people have to flee, then I consider neighboring countries, Turkey, or safe parts of Afghanistan, to be definitely the more suitable.” Just this weekend, he reiterated his sensible stance that Austria will not accept new Afghan migrants.

The shocking crime against the 13-year-old was not out of character regarding the Austrian experience with Afghan men. Cheryl Benard is a former Rand Corporation analyst who is married to the former US Ambassador to Afghanistan. She wrote a revealing article on the Afghan migrants in Austria, titled:I’ve Worked with Refugees for Decades. Europe’s Afghan Crime Wave Is Mind-Boggling.”

She describes “the large and growing incidence of sexual assaults committed by refugees against local women.”

MUST READ: EXC: A Senior Biden Staffer Wrote An Afghanistan Policy Paper Which Was Sponsored By a Top Chinese Communist Influence Group.

The ongoing crimes are “vicious, no-preamble attacks on random girls and women, often committed by gangs or packs of young men. At first, the incidents were downplayed or hushed up—no one wanted to provide the right wing with fodder for nationalist agitation…[but] with the official acknowledgment and public reporting, a weird and puzzling footnote emerged. Most of the assaults were being committed by refugees of one particular nationality: by Afghans.”

Benard cites that the relatively small Afghan population of Austria commits a staggering half of all sexual assaults there, according to police statistics. According to Hoover Institution research, between 2015 and 2018, during the wave of refugee settlement in Austria, sexual assaults there climbed 53 percent. Next door in Germany, in 2017 and 2018 one third of all sex crime suspects were foreign-born.

Beyond the critical need to defend American women, the issue of potential for terrorism must also be considered. The sad reality of “green on blue” attacks in Afghanistan, wherein trusted Afghan partners turn on Americans or their fellow Afghan soldiers, proves that even the carefully-vetted can present dire risks.

Just last year, two American soldiers were killed and six wounded when a supposed Afghan army ally turned on them with a hail of machine gunfire. In total, over 150 American and coalition lives have been lost in such attacks. The death toll has been much worse for the Afghans. In 2019, insider attacks killed a stunning 172 Afghan armed forces fighters, slain by their own allegedly-vetted fellow servicemen.

Given these risks, we simply should not allow the globalists to, once again, inflict the costs of their disastrous war and mindless nation-building upon the citizens of America. This pattern of invading a country, massively destabilizing it, creating a refugee crisis, and then settling those migrants in America is not a sustainable path to security and prosperity. But then again, the globalists know that all too well.

TiLTNews Network

The Wars of Wars Part I

TiLTNews Network

A Living Organized Summary of Rounding the Earth’s Primary Mission

Mathew Crawford

Apr 17

Last edited: August 5, 2021

Source: The Wars of Wars Part I

While it will take time to weave together the many threads of the stories I’m writing at Rounding the Earth, ultimately, they do all fit together into a cogent story of how and why we are traveling through a portal of change, and whether the results will be freedom or slavery for humanity on the other side. Understanding this story of mass global change is important, and frankly difficult. I find myself forming new insights every day as I research so many topics. I do not pretend to be able to make sense of all of it, but filtering so many thousands of pages of reading into connected frameworks certainly helps. Let’s make sense of it all together.

Like it or not, a world war is underway, and it has been underway for longer than most people realize. It is the World Civil War, pitting an increasingly tyrannical ruling class against everyone else. Its development is slow at least partially because the collapse of the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, is slow. Right now major players are setting up more overt moves while making subtler plays. This could change.

This particular newsletter page will be updated from time to time as stories progress and intersect. If you want to bookmark one page at this substack, this is the one.

Please share this substack and subscribe to support this mission. I am sharing most articles for free, and working on them (and research for scientific publication) full time.

You can also follow me at or twitter.

The Bitcoin Wars

I am still working on initial articles in this series. The Bitcoin Wars will cover topics in cryptocurrency, but also the potential resolution of the Triffin Paradox should a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin supplant the rapidly failing dollar. This series will involve immediate interplay with The Monetary Wars.

The China Wars

Making sense of the world is impossible without understanding China and its history.

The Chloroquine Wars

This is the series that spurred me to start this substack as I found myself banned from social media time and time again for talking through facts about medicine during the pandemic. Many of these articles are likely to be wrapped into a book at some point.

The Culture Wars

Politics is downstream of culture, so it makes sense that much of the world civil war starts here.

The Education Wars

How most children are raised into submission and how to avoid it.

Game Theory

The mathematical (more logic than computation) framework for evaluating economics and civilization. Learning about game theory will help you better understand many of the harder topics among these articles.

The Kunlangeta

Kunlangeta is the eskimo word for psychopaths.

The Information Wars

Stories of propaganda in context with the current world war. Under development.

The Monetary Wars

Money makes the world go ’round.

Reality Show Politics

Does this all look entirely natural, or often scripted? What are the implications?

The Religion Wars

Because war sometimes comes down to cohesion.

The Wars of Wars

Putting the pieces together to make sense of the World Civil War

  • Engineering Dependence

  • Engineering Independence

TiLTNews Network

CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

TiLTNews Network

CORTES: Welcome to Joe Biden’s American Carnage.

August 17, 2021 Afghanistan, Analysis, inflation, Joe Biden, open borders, Vaccine No comments

In his Inaugural Address, President Donald J. Trump promised that the misery inflicted on everyday Americans by globalists, via constant war and economic abuse, would end with a new America First agenda. He pledged, “this American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” And stop it did, as Trump ended senseless wars and ushered in record-setting wage growth in 2019 before the CCP virus hit America like an epidemiological Pearl Harbor.

But now, under Joe Biden, the carnage begins anew, with astounding swiftness and scale, only months into his administration. Biden’s failures exceed even the most dire prognostications of his fiercest critics prior to him assuming the presidency under dubious electoral circumstances.

Presently, America’s mood plunges, as evidenced by the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey which is widely followed by economists and financial markets. On Friday, that index saw one of the steepest drops in its decades-long history. After climbing from Spring 2020 lockdown lows of 71.8 to 81.3, the preliminary August reading crashed back to 70.2, surrendering all pandemic recovery gains, and hitting a 10 year low.

Little wonder that US citizens report such pessimism given the concurrent crises created by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris:


Consumer negativity flows mainly from the dreadful news on staggering price increases. First, the Consumer Price Index reported another 5.4 percent annualized inflation increase, the steepest such advance since 2008 and further evidence that the recent surge in prices is structural and not “transitory” as the White House would have us pretend.

Then, the Producer Price Index revealed a staggering 7.8 percent inflation rate at the wholesale level, the worst number in the history of the current index (going back to 2010), and likely the worst producer price acceleration since the early 1980s at the end of Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation.”

MUST READ:  Unmitigated Disasters: Biden’s First Months Have Been Some of America’s Worst.

This inflation surge results directly from the massive spending and borrowing of the Biden/Schumer/Pelosi agenda, aided and abetted by eunuch Republican senators bereft of the fortitude to stand their ground against a suddenly deeply unpopular Biden.

Open Borders.

Even the incompetent chief of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, conceded in leaked audio discussions that the open borders madness grows “unsustainable” and predicted that “we’re going to lose.” The numbers reveal a torrent of illegal trespassers into America, with 212,672 illegal migrants encountered at our southern border in July alone, the highest total in two decades.

Scorching summer heat did not deter this human tsunami which included, for the fifth month in a row, all-time record totals of unaccompanied minors.

Medical Apartheid.

While Biden eliminates our borders and incentivizes those breaking-and-entering into our country, he actually considers shutting down domestic interstate travel to citizens of our republic who make rational and personal medical decision to forego the new COVID mitigation therapies, widely advertised as vaccines.

Joe Biden purposefully leaves America’s figurative door wide open to any and all comers while simultaneously sending government agents to knock on the literal doors of citizens to pressure them to inject an experimental medicine that many of them do not need or want. How will these leftists explain why minority Americans, with severely lagging vaccine rates, deserve new legal segregation?

Afghanistan Implosion.

Regarding minorities and other working-class constituencies, they paid the heaviest price for the disastrous Afghan War. Globalist elites pushed a nonsensical nation-building experiment for two decades. Think-tanks and the military-industrial complex grew rich. But the price for interventionist folly was paid primarily by young men from places like rural Tennessee and the urban barrios in the Bronx.

MUST READ:  These Gun Myths Are Driving Biden’s Anti-2nd Amendment Policy Push.

Trump thankfully wound down this adventurism. Biden’s lack of planning and foresight turned the exfiltration process into a disaster that still unfolds right now. It appears that, within days of a final US withdrawal of personnel, the Taliban will be back in power, only this time heavily armed with materiel bought by US taxpayers.

Given these myriad, historic failures, what can be done to mitigate this rapid descent into American carnage?

On inflation, options are limited after the feckless GOP failed so miserably on the infrastructure bill and its evil twin, the Green New Deal reconciliation behemoth. But, some leverage still exists via the debt ceiling, if worthless Lindsey Graham and minority Mitch McConnell can find backbones. On open borders, strong state leaders like Ken Paxton show initiative with his successful suit against Biden’s asylum process abuses. Governors Abbott and Ducey need to step up with more state enforcement to counter federal inaction.

Regarding medical apartheid, red state legislatures and governors must follow the strong lead of Governor Ron DeSantis and stop employers and cities from abusing the privacy and rights of citizens. On Afghanistan, few levers avail themselves to the GOP presently, but this epic failure, the worst foreign policy collapse since the fall of Saigon, must become a central tenet of America First campaign pledges into 2022, an agenda of overseas realism and restraint.

In these very dark days for America, patriots must think creatively and act forcefully to stop the carnage inflicted by Biden and his cabal of credentialed White House dilettantes who fetishized his new administration as an episode of West Wing.

August 17, 2021 5:25 pm

TiLTNews Network

Babies born during COVID-19 pandemic have lower IQs: Study says

TiLTNews Network

See source article and study below

IQs Dramatically Dropping During Covid

Babies born during COVID-19 pandemic have lower IQs: Study says

COVID-19 has been debilitatingly boring for newborns, disturbing new research has found.

Scientists have discovered that the coronavirus pandemic significantly impacted the intelligence of children born during it: Living the entirety of their lives in lockdown has seriously stunted their cognitive development.


Researchers analyzed the cognitive performances of 672 children born in Rhode Island, 188 of them born well into the pandemic (after July 2020), 308 born before it (prior to January 2019) and 176 of them born during its beginning stage (between January 2019 and March 2020). They found that children born during the pandemic have pronouncedly lower IQs than those born before it.

“Parents are stressed and frazzled. The ability to course-correct becomes smaller the older that child gets.”

Sean Deoni

“It’s not subtle by any stretch,” lead study author and Brown University associate professor of pediatric research Sean Deoni told the Guardian of the trend. “You don’t typically see things like that, outside of major cognitive disorders.”

Authors attribute the pattern to children being cognitively impaired from spending so much time inside with overwhelmed parents during the past year. While many adults have managed to tough it out, so much isolation at a critical juncture in the mental progress of infants has likely caused lasting damage.

Not being exposed to the wider world as much as pre-pandemic children and instead spending their infancy with stressed adults has left them at a significant mental disadvantage than their slightly older peers, according to the not-yet-peer-reviewed findings published Wednesday.

see also


Teacher had two pregnancies, four children in lockdown

“Parents are stressed and frazzled … that interaction the child would normally get has decreased substantially,” said Deoni, adding that the lack of stimulation during the pandemic has created setbacks that will be hard for children to overcome. “The ability to course-correct becomes smaller the older that child gets.”

Children from less financially secure families were impacted the most, researchers noted.

“Perhaps not surprising that children from lower socioeconomic families have been most affected as this resonates with many of the other financial, employment and health impacts of the pandemic,” University College London child health professor Sir Terence

Brown University Study
Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [608.11 KB]

TiLTNews Network

Episode 1,123 – Massive Revolts Against Covid Restrictions

TiLTNews Network

Kassam: Concern And Worry Has Turned To Rage

Source: Kassam: Concern And Worry Has Turned To Rage

Concern and worry has turned to rage, and they discuss the ever nearing debt ceiling. Our guests are: Mike Lindell, Dave Clements, Frank Gaffney Stay ahead of the censors – Join us Ai

Source: Episode 1,123 – Massive Revolts Against Covid Restrictions

TiLTNews Network

Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the ‘Platonic Noble Lie’

TiLTNews Network

Watch Now: Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the & Platonic Noble Lie

“When you don’t speak up, you get the Robespierre brothers in the French Revolution…you get Mao [Zedong]…You get the Salem witch trials on a continental scale…a return to the Dark Ages.”

  on standing up to woke ideology

American Thought Leaders




Exclusive: Victor Davis Hanson on the Assault on Meritocracy, Politicization of the Virus, and the ‘Platonic Noble Lie’

There will be “no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it,” says classicist and historian Victor Davis Hanson.

In this episode, Hanson breaks down the problems he sees plaguing American society today, from the assault on meritocracy to the “Frankenstein monster” of moral relativism.

Throughout society today, elites justify their control of or manipulation of information as for the good of the people, Hanson says. It’s the “noble lie”: “I’m smarter than you. I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good…Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying,” Hanson says.

Jan Jekielek: Victor Davis Hanson, so great to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Victor Davis Hanson: Thank you.

Mr. Jekielek: Victor, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how some people call us living in a post-truth world. Others I’ve spoken with on this show describe it as an epistemic crisis.

I want to talk about this, but I’ve been watching this play out—you and I have both been watching this play out: how this story of the origins of the Wuhan coronavirus has changed over the last year and a bit. It’s pretty fascinating.

Mr. Hanson: Well, remember what happened. The Chinese government said that this was some kind of bat or pangolin jump from nature to human transmission. We had the utmost confidence in the WHO, World Health Organization, and they confirmed that. Dr. Tedros said that it was non-transmissible between humans and it originated in a wet market.

There had been little rumors that there was a Level 4 virology lab in Wuhan, so that was the narrative. Donald Trump, remember, was doing trade deals at the time with China, so he actually accepted all of this.

Dr. [Anthony] Fauci was telling us, as the head of the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that we shouldn’t worry and it won’t be a pandemic. For the first January and February, that was the narrative. Then when it started to spread, people started to notice that people in Wuhan had been locked down from other parts of China, but they were perfectly able or maybe encouraged to go to European ports of entry or LAX or JFK.

I think we had about a million people in that 11- or 12-day period when the Chinese communist government said, “Nobody from Wuhan is going to get near us, but you’re all going to go to the United States, if you wish.” So that was starting to break down this narrative that it was just a benign infectious coronavirus, and then suddenly people started to whisper there was a Chinese military presence in the lab.

There were dissident voices who said that the Chinese government was not telling you the truth about the severity or the transmissibility or the infectiousness of the virus, and then there were people, dissident voices who said, “We don’t have an animal species with the virus. We only have the human species, so we’ve got to find the animal.”

Then all of a sudden, this was hit with huge pushback—Dr. [Peter] Daszak, Dr. Fauci, WHO. How dare you try to be such a racist? Then the Chinese communist government was giving us propaganda talking points, which the left eagerly [used].

Then Donald Trump, in late April, excuse me, late March, started to say that was the virus and that thing came from the lab, and they were experimenting on gain-of-function, and he had probably seen intelligence reports. In fact, I think he said he did, and that became taboo because Donald Trump had said something.

This time, it wasn’t just, “There is no Russian collusion,” or “Hydroxychloroquine has efficacy,” but it was, “The Wuhan lab is connected with the origins of the virus.” So anything that Donald Trump said was true had to be false.

It was an election year, after all. Then the scientific community created—we created this word, “the science.” The science says, the genome says, the virologist said. Beneath this entire façade, there were motivations. Dr. Fauci had subsidized Echo Health, Dr. Daszak, with sizable grants who then had rechanneled some of that money into the virology lab to conduct gain-of-function research that was banned in the United States.

So then people reacted accordingly. We would not want American public to think that we encouraged a gain-of-function ability of a virus that was otherwise confined originally to a bat or pangolin, but we took that virus and changed it and it got out of this lab. That was about a year’s narrative.

My interest in all of this is not that it became politically incorrect to question the wet market thesis and to suggest the lab, but if you think about it rationally, a lot of people died. Just think if in January or February, the Chinese government had come out and said, “We were engaged in research, and we are not solely culpable because American public health officials gave us some money, so we’re jointly culpable, and we’ll jointly solve this problem. But this thing is really scary because it’s a gain-of-function, unnatural, engineered virus.”

The whole world would have just panicked, and we would have had lockdowns, and we would have had quarantines early. We might have stopped it.

But instead, anybody who suggested this was demonized, ostracized, canceled. Nobody cared about the truth. The truth was [evaluated by] are the aims or the ends to hurt Donald Trump? If it is, any means necessary are justified.

Mr. Jekielek: This wasn’t just the politicians and the bureaucrats that were holding this line, but there were major scientific periodicals. I’m thinking of “Nature,” one of the preeminent biology journals in the world, at least one of them, that were also very much holding this line, shockingly so, I think.

Mr. Hanson: Yes, I think one of the most egregious examples was “Lancet” in Britain where Dr. Daszak had actually encouraged a group of preeminent virologists and epidemiologists to speak with one voice and condemn anybody who would dare connect the lab with the origins of COVID, even though they were in the same city, very logical connection to be made.

What he didn’t tell us, under the guise of “the science,” was that he was engaged, as we said, in transferring funding to this lab, and more importantly, some of the people that he was organizing to sign that letter had conflicts of interest as well. The letter was not: let’s open a debate and investigation. The letter was that this is anti-scientific, or nonscientific, or how dare you?

Because looming behind all these discussions is the unmentionable, the unfathomable, the thing that terrifies us, and what would that be? That would be that an American preeminent scientist, doctor, medical professional, architect of national health policy—a Dr. Fauci, for example—knowingly channeled gain-of-function research money through a third party to China, and that that had something to do with an enhanced virus that then leaked when that laboratory was under suspicion prior of having lax security measures.

If that were true, then if you reduce it down to its essence, the United States had some culpability and did not tell the world that they had subsidized the creation of this satanic virus.

Mr. Jekielek: So you think this is all a political construct then or is there something deeper here?

Mr. Hanson: The lesson of all of this is multi-faceted. It has shaken the confidence in professionals with letters after their name—so BA, MA, PhD, JD, whatever the particular rubric is. We don’t believe that the World Health Organization is immune from Chinese propaganda.

We don’t believe, after we read the emails from Dr. Fauci, that because he’s an eminent MD and researcher that he deserves utmost respect, especially when he said that he deliberately mislead us about masks, so that people wouldn’t have a run on masks.

He deliberately mislead us about herd immunity so that people would get vaccinated. In other words, he used what we in classics call the Platonic noble lie. I’m smarter than you, I’m your platonic guardian. I can lie for your own good. You, the deplorables, are ignorant. You’ll benefit from my lie. Just don’t dare suggest I’m lying.

It really shook our confidence in that and then all of these organs of liberal expression in the media, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Network News. We all thought that they were in the civil liberties tradition. The more light, remember, democracy dies in darkness, so to speak, bring the light out. But they were actually collaborating with the establishment scientific community and the progressive political movement to squash any mention of a lab.

And then they did something that was, I think, unconscionable. When Donald Trump tried to irritate the Chinese, and he called it the Chinese virus, he was doing what we do by calling it the Spanish flu of 1918, or the Ebola virus because, or Lyme disease in Connecticut.

We’re speaking in the San Joaquin Valley. I grew up with something called Valley fever. I went to Stanford University and people say, “You live in the valley? What’s that Valley fever you guys all die of?” The point is that you always have a geographical connotation, and all Trump was doing is trying to needle them or troll them, but he was not being racist.

But then they fabricated this enormous narrative that Donald Trump was a racist, and therefore, nothing he said could be valuable. This would be later on very valuable in this post-truth world to say that even though data showed that overwhelmingly on a per capita basis, African-American male youth were overrepresented, if I can use that term, in attacks on Asians, and these were hate crimes that were not commensurate with their percentages of population, it didn’t matter.

People said, “We’re not going to report that crime,” or “we’re going to get a member of the Asian-American community to say that it’s still white people doing this because Donald Trump created the climate by using the word China or Wuhan virus.” So all of this was not connected with reality. It was not fact-based.

Mr. Jekielek: I think we’ve been talking about this idea that reality, what actually happened in a situation, seems to in past years become a lot less relevant or a lot less important to the general discourse. That of course can be used for political expediency. There’s an ideological bent to this.

Mr. Hanson: Yes. Well, in the Western empirical tradition, the Socratic tradition, the Aristotelian tradition, there were always dissidents. We call them the sophists. Sophist was not a bad word in antiquity. It just meant somebody who was wise like a sophist.

It could be a deprecatory word, but basically they challenged facts and reality. They said, “If I can prove an argument to you that you can be persuaded by words, then it’s true, or otherwise you wouldn’t be able to be persuaded,” and so the sophists began saying that there were things that were relative. You say honey is sweet. That’s only because you think it’s sweet. And then this person doesn’t like honey. Therefore, it’s not sweet—rather than, let’s systematically, empirically, in the inductive mood, get 100 people, poll them, and 99 percent will say, “Honey is sweeter than salt.” Therefore, it’s sweet.

But you see, they always take the exception to destroy the function or the foundation of empiricism. So that wasn’t new.

In the 19th century, Marxism—based on, there was Hegel and Nietzsche who were contributors to it—but it said, “These norms, these traditions, these laws, these canons are artificially constructed, and they’re constructed by a power class, people who inherited wealth or influence or got it through ill-gotten gains.”

And they’ve set up an arbitrary system of rules. They call this shoplifting, so they put you in jail when you go into a store and take something that’s not yours, but who says that they didn’t commit a crime to have the money to have that store?

So it was a method of being relativist and say that every single crime or every single thought, there was a class struggle behind it. Take that idea from Marx, and over the next century, it was going to be translated in the Frankfurt School, but especially by people in Italy like Gramsci and then back here in the United States, by Herbert Marcuse.

I was a student of Norman O. Brown’s at UC Santa Cruz. They said that this relativism is not just Marxist class struggle because after all, we don’t really have a class struggle in the United States. Free market capitalism can make a guy on Monday who’s middle class on Tuesday wealthy, and vice versa.

But they said, “It’s racist,” and race is immutable, it’ll never change. LeBron will be a victim the rest of his life, so will Oprah, so will Meghan Markle. It doesn’t matter how much money they have. This was a very valuable tool for the left because it said, “You don’t have to worry about losing your constituency.” LeBron is always going to be a victim because he’s black, and he’s always suffering from an oppressor class that have set up arbitrary rules, and so now when we look at this woke movement, this anti-empirical movement you’re talking about, CNN, Don Lemon can be a multi-millionaire, it doesn’t matter. He is a victim because he’s black, because the society is systemically racist.

Then notice how the vocabulary came in from the postmodernists. If you can’t see it, and it’s not fact-based, then it’s systemic, it’s insidious, or it’s a micro-aggression. So they had to come up with words to create a reality that otherwise wasn’t observable to the senses, and that was an untruth.

But basically, we’re in a climate that started on campus with academics, and it’s now permeated the larger culture that says crimes, laws, SAT scores, ACTs, GPAs, these are all constructs that are used to discriminate against people that don’t have access to power, and these people in our modern American society are more likely to be oppressed because of race.

We’re speaking in Fresno County. I can go right out my door and find 10 white people that are 20 years old that have no privilege. They’re either without BAs or high school degrees, and they’re working as welders, forklift drivers, long haul truckers. But according to this critical racial theory, they have a privilege that Oprah, the $2 billion worth Oprah, lacks because they’re white, and they exercise that privilege every day when they drive their forklift around.

That’s where we are. It’s like Alice through the looking glass. Everything’s upside down.

Mr. Jekielek: This is something I’ve been thinking about. Why this apparent war on merit, or war on even talent, I suppose?

Mr. Hanson: When you mention talent, you just mentioned a hierarchy. So if I was a sophist of the ancient or modern brand, I would say to you, “Well, what does talent mean? Define talent for me.”

You’re going to say, “Well, Victor, when you want to see if you’re going to be first chair violin, or second chair violin, or third chair in an orchestra. We’re going to put one person behind a wall and the other person behind a wall so you don’t know their identities, and you’re going to listen to the music.”

I’m going to say, “Oh yes,” but one person brought up in a particular cultural environment knows the technique of pleasing a particular violin strain to that particular audience that’s also privileged, and who to say is that strain is not as or more or less engaging than the person who happens to be a person of color?

I’m not making this up. This is now an attack on blind merit, so to speak, and this applies to everything. The danger of it is that there’s no end to it, it’s nihilistic, and it starts to impair the safety of society.

I’ve been to a lot of places in the world, and one of the things I always say to myself: why does the bathroom not work? Why is there trash outside? Why is the bus broken down? Why when somebody pulls out in front of somebody, they get out and fight?

I always come with the same conclusion: because they hire their first cousin. In other words, when I go to the Middle East, it’s a tribal society, and merit is not a criterion that people respect. It’s got a higher cronyism than the United States. We all have that, but it’s the aberration, not the norm.

Once you get rid of merit, and you start to use deductive qualifications, then you’re going to have an insidious decline. You can see it, if you think over the last 50 years in the age of affirmative action. What was the joke that everybody said? I think it was Cassius Clay, later, Muhammad Ali, when he was flying once, he said, “I want to make sure this pilot is of a particular race.” He was trying to say that he didn’t want affirmative action. They used to say nuclear plant operator.

The reason I mention that is that now we know that United Airlines is going to have pilot training that’s going to be based on racial criteria on who is going to be accepted, not prior skills or requisites.

So there will be no sacrosanct, no safe space, no sanctuary from wokeism until the system starts to erode the safety and the security of the elite that created it, and we’re starting to see that a little bit already.

Mr. Jekielek: For example, in Portland, the Antifa protests have turned into a whole lawless sector in the middle of Portland, presumably. So how is it that this just wasn’t dealt with for such a long time?

Mr. Hanson: Well, you remember the mayor, as I recall, of Portland said it was going to be a summer of love, I think. We had all of these mayors—I get them confused—the Seattle mayor, the Portland mayor, and the Minneapolis mayor.

Basically, if I could conflate them, they said that brick and mortar didn’t matter. If you burn down a precinct or a federal courthouse, it didn’t matter because these were symbols of authority that was unearned or ill-gotten, and that this natural exuberance would play itself out if we appeased it.

In other words, the laws of human nature no longer apply, that somebody will do something until there’s a deterrent to stop them. What stops them? What ultimately stops them? Society reaches a critical tipping point when people—the majority of the people, whether they’re vigilantes in San Francisco in 1850, or whether they’re the community of Salem, Massachusetts, when they’re starting to burn witches on charges of witchcraft—at some point, somebody says, “The society can no longer exist if this continues.”

What would be some of the things I’m talking about? If you have areas in Portland, or Seattle, or Minneapolis where the downtown is barricaded, where people have died there, where it’s filthy, then that’s something that people are going to be worried about.

If you go to Venice Beach on the way to Santa Monica, and you see people living like they’re out of the 8th century—feces, poor people, violence, tribalism.

Or if you’re in San Francisco, and you see a video of a person who rides his bike into a Walgreens and then in front of the security guard, fills up a trash bag with things, steals them unapologetically, is let go because he feels that it’s less than $1,000, so the lunatic district attorney will not charge him.

Well, that’s a breakdown in the order of society. We’re not talking about elite squabbles on who gets into Princeton and who doesn’t. We’re talking about getting up in the morning and being able to survive one more day.

When that is questioned—and we’re getting close in the major cities—then you’re going to have a gut check time. People are either going to say, “You know what? It’s lost. I’m heading out toward the rural areas. I’m going to find a community in Utah, or Nevada, or something, or I’m going to stay and fight.”

I don’t have an answer because, as an American, I think this is a collective madness that happened with George Floyd, the pandemic, the scares of the coronavirus, the lockdown, the quarantine, the self-induced recession, the George Floyd protests, the election year, the weird early voting mail-in ballots—all of those were forced multipliers of the madness.

Locked in, people were watching TV or computers and not interacting. I think that’s collective madness. I have to hope it’ll wane now, but maybe the virus is so deeply embedded now, it can’t be exiled.

Mr. Jekielek: What virus exactly are you talking about here?

Mr. Hanson: Well, I’m not talking about the recession virus, all those viruses, or the George Floyd reaction viruses, or the quarantine virus, or the election virus, but the woke virus.

That is the idea that somewhere in this annus horribilis of 2020, we collectively lost our mind, and we said that we’re going to adopt the culture and the code and the values of the Salem Witch Trials, the Reign of Terror in 1793 in France, and the McCarthyite period in the United States, where we’re going to cancel a person out if we find one incorrect thought or utterance. And we’re going to completely reject the civil rights movement and the visions of Martin Luther King, so the color of our skins is a very critical requisite of who we are, and not the content of our character.

That’s where we are, and we know from Iraq, Rwanda, and the Balkans where that leads. It leads to nihilism, deadly nihilism.

Mr. Jekielek: This is interesting. There’s been a lot of discussion about critical race theory. Of course, this is one of the ideologies behind what you’re talking about. There’s this element where the people who are advocates will say, “Well, you don’t really understand what it is,” and so forth.

Mr. Hanson: Well, critical means that it’s critical of the norm, and theory means that it can’t be proved, so it’s not a fact. It’s a suspicion.

It started in—there were elements of Marx in Freud. Think of that. Those are the two pernicious thinkers of the 19th century. Marx said that all of human experience can be defined as oppressor versus oppressed, or victim versus victimizer. There is no middle class. If there is a middle class, it’s only the deluded who think they’re middle class. So there’s this tension. Anybody who has things got them, ill-gotten gains, what we call now under critical race theory, honor and privilege, and then there are the people who have a right to take it from them and redistribute it.

Okay, that was the Marxist end. Then Freud came along and said, “What you and I are doing right now is not who we are. These are just superficial manifestations of deep-seated urges. If we were under psychoanalysis, or we got drunk, the real us would come out. The hang ups that we use to suppress our inner self cannot be taken seriously.” And that was very important because critical theory then adopted the idea that norms are not only to be termed them versus us, but what people say cannot be trusted.

If you say, “I’m not racist, I’ve never said the N-word.” They said, “Yes, but you said colored people instead of people of color. That suggests to me that deep down inside you really wanted to say the N-word. Or you live in a certain way that is systemically racist. You don’t know it, but I’m trained to fathom it.”

So a critical racial theory workshop specialist can, in Freudian fashion, can find your symptoms and say, “Ta da, he’s a racist. It’s insidious, it’s systemic.”

Those were the two fountainheads of critical theory. And then when you add the third necessary component—World War I and World War II, where Europe committed collective suicide—you saw it in painting, poetry. After World War I, they took something like Impressionism, which was a take off on classical reality, and then they went into Dadaism and Surrealism and got into Jackson Pollack.

Well, art never looked like anything the eyes saw. Poetry didn’t rhyme, it had no particular vocabulary. T.S. Eliot had seemed radical, and he would be, what, conservative. He was very soon compared to what was called poetry. You could throw anything on a page, just like you could with paint, and it was a poem. Then there were certain schools that grew up in that general period of depression.

Then this accelerated in World War II. When the French army, the bulwark of the West, with Churchill’s great faith that stopped Nazism, the very country that said, “They shall not pass” collapsed in six weeks in 1940 in May and June, how do you explain that to future generations? You don’t, so you come up with this French post-structuralism, post-modernism that you really either didn’t collapse or that it believed in fake laws or traditions.

You say anything other than what an empiricist would say, “Well, it was inevitable because you were teaching in the 1920s it was illegal to mention Verdun in a positive sense.” You just said it was a nihilistic bloodbath, whether then the French army saved France from Germany. Socialism was deeply embedded, and this is the net logical fruition.

What I’m getting at is that a lot of people, to explain reality that they did not like or they could not accept, took earlier Freudism, Marxism, and then critical theory was born in the Frankfurt School and Gramsci, and then that became critical legal theory.

We saw that in the 1980s in what people said. Originally, there were elements of truth in it. If you snort cocaine and you’re wealthy, you go five years to prison. If you cook it, and it’s crack cocaine, you got 20, because you’re black. Well, there may have been some truth to that.

But they expanded that to all of Western jurisprudence, that you don’t look at the law and you don’t look at the manner in which the law was made. You look at who benefits and who suffers from the law, and then therefore, you adjudicate it—whether it has any moral or legal authority.

And that was very important because the whole sanctuary city movement where you nullify federal laws based on a racist, oppressive, federal immigration law. Notice what was ironic about it was nullification of law was always a right-wing concept, so the left told us. It was what Andrew Jackson tried to fight with South Carolina in 1832. It was what caused the Civil War.

It was what George Wallace said in the door at the University of Alabama when he said, “I don’t have to follow federal law. This is the state’s rights.” Suddenly, state’s rights became great. You can nullify federal law because it’s for a noble purpose, so it was relativism par excellence.

That’s where we are, where every single idea is not factually based. I’m not exaggerating. I’m getting back to that earlier point. So if you have data that, let’s take an example, that non-white minority groups commit hate crimes against whites and each other at higher rates than in their percentages of the population than whites, that’s a data point.

It doesn’t matter. Whites are responsible for that because they have set up arbitrary norms of assessing that data, and they don’t tell you that a 22-year-old African-American male in New York walked up, took a hammer, and hit an Asian because he felt depressed or that he was exploited or that the larger society created him is responsible. That’s what critical race theory tends to do.

Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned the education in France in the 1920s, that’s interesting. There’s been some pushback that you talked about that you’ve started seeing. We’re seeing, for example, parents pushing back in K-12 education against critical race theory being taught, or the world being taught or whatever subject being taught, through the lens of one of these critical theories.

At the same time, we have people pushing back against that, saying—there are people pushing for legislation, and there are people saying, “Hey, wait a sec. The government shouldn’t be legislating what can be taught and not taught in schools.” There’s an interesting microcosm here.

Mr. Hanson: I think there are two things going on there, and one is that there are enough people who realize that every totalitarian movement, whether it’s national socialist, or communist, or Marxist, has to eventually address K-12 education because that’s where the future generations come from.

If you can take the child away from the home, and you can create a new man or a new woman, then that becomes an extremely valuable resource because if they’re trained right, that the higher morality is to stamp out racism, and they go home and hear their parents talk—well, their parents are not going to say anything racist, 99.9 percent. But they’re going to say things, which according to critical race theory could be interpreted that way.

The parents understand that, and they know what had happened in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and other places, so they’re saying, “Do not take my children, brainwash them, and ultimately turn them against me, because that’s what you’re doing.”

That’s very important because that’s the strongest bond in nature—between a child and his parents or her parents—and so I think that explains why people say, “We won’t have a society if these leftists turn the youth of America against us.”

The second thing is, very quickly, they understand that none of these woke issues have a 50 percent constituency—not open borders, not critical race theory, not the New Green Deal, not the cancel culture, not identity politics, none of it. So in a calm environment, people are not willingly going to embrace this wokeism.

But given a pandemic—Hillary said that. She said, “Thank God for the pandemic; it changed everything.” Without a pandemic, without a lockdown, without a recession, without George Floyd, without riots, without Trump, we wouldn’t have this state of hysteria. We’ve got to make it last. You never let a plague go to waste, and that’s where they are.

Finally, what people are worried about in the era of untruth, is that the people who are supposed to police the police, as the poet Juvenal said, “The experts versed in science are supposed to audit the scientists. They are the ones that are most suspicious.”

By that, I mean you can say that a person under 60 has a 99.97 percent chance of not becoming seriously—or dying, I should say—from COVID, or under, say 16, 99.99 percent of not dying, and therefore they don’t need to be vaccinated. If they have antibodies, especially, they don’t have to be. That’s a scientific fact.

But if that goes against a particular creed, or a government idea, or a lockdown, or something, or a mask wearing, then it will be discarded. So that’s what’s scary on matters of vaccination.

I’ll just give you one example. A person called me the other day, a pretty prominent person, doesn’t matter. He’s not somebody who is just a paranoid conspiracist. I mean prominent in the sense he reads widely.

He says to me, “I have high antibodies. I got a bad case of COVID. This organization will not let me attend unless I get vaccinated. My doctor has told me that people with my 90 plus titer, whatever that means, if they get a vaccination they have a larger, much greater chance of having a bad reaction, and my naturally acquired immunity at that level is superior, at least equal to a vaccination. I have proof of it, three. I have the test. Why can I not go to this organization without getting a vaccination that’s going to imperil my health?”

Somewhere behind all of this is Fauci’s “noble lie”. Somebody is thinking, either Fauci or somebody like him, is thinking, “Ah, but if we say that he does not have a, he has an excuse, he doesn’t have an excuse, he’s immune from the virus, then we’ll loosen the requirement, or we’ll need to have authenticity, so we’ll just lie and say, “You don’t have immunity. You have to be vaccinated.”

Only people with two shots, Moderna or Pfizer, maybe one, they have real immunity. Acquired immunity is counterfeit, and that’s pretty much where we are. You see people that will say, “I got a really bad case of COVID.” We’ll say, “Why didn’t you get vaccinated?” They’ll say, “I don’t want to get a bad reaction. I got better immunity than you.” Says who? We think they’re renegades.

This is a pretty conservative area and it’s kind of isolated, but if you and I get in the car right now and backroad in central California, I think about one out of every three people will drive by alone in a car, half of them vaccinated according to statistics, with a mask on.

There is zero chance that when you’re driving down Mountainview Avenue with a mask on inside your car, you’re going to be better or worse protected. You’re not going to be protected from anything because you’re vaccinated. There’s no pathogen anywhere in your car. Why wear a mask?

Mr. Jekielek: It’s interesting. It goes back to this question that’s been on my mind, which is basically, so there’s these noble, let’s say, noble lies that people may want to perpetrate for the good of society, ostensibly.

But that exists independently. It can exist independently of this, let’s say, the woke ideology or these Marxian ideologies. But it’s the intersection of these is what I find, I guess, fascinating because that’s what this year, in a way, has been that.

Mr. Hanson: I think so. I think the value of the Trump presidency was it was a catalyst, or maybe some kind of elixir that people drank, and it showed out what the pathologies were of America. He had that ability to scrape off the scab and show the putrid wound beneath, and so it was very clear, I think, to all of us by the first eight months, to take the example of Russian collusion, that Christopher Steele was a faker, that he had no sources, and he would later admit to that in a British court, that he had no evidence.

But people who were very supposedly well-versed in journalism or academia or political science kept saying, “collusion,” “indictment,” “bombshell,” “walls are closing on Trump” because they felt that the Russian collusion narrative was valuable.

It was a noble lie because it would weaken Donald Trump, and if it weakened Donald Trump, poor people, or people of color, or people of the underclass would have a better shot at life. Therefore, it really didn’t matter that you lied, and lied, and lied.

Same thing about hydroxychloroquine. When that drug was mentioned as a cheap, seven-cents-a-dose drug, proven anti-malarial. If you go on the website of the United Nations, you’ll find that it’s one of the United Nations’ safe drugs for inflammation like lupus, but especially for malaria. It’s been around for, in rare cases at high dosages per body weight, it may cause arrhythmias, but very rarely.

But Donald Trump said, “What do you have to lose? You might want to try it.” As soon as he said that, then all of a sudden it became a very dangerous drug. Many states barred doctors who prescribed it.

When you started to search, the number of hits for hydroxychloroquine were almost the same as COVID. So we took that drug that had efficacy in India, Brazil, all over the world, at least if it was used early and at the right dosage per body weight, and we demonized it.

Now we learn that actually, it did have efficacy. How many people died? I don’t know, a lot of them did. Dr. Steve Smith said 100 million may have died, 100,000, excuse me.

But the point I’m getting at, these are examples of, for the greater good of society, I, an elite, have determined what those people down there do not know, will never know, and just can’t possibly know. But for me to convince them what’s good for them, I have to lie to scare them, and I’m perfectly willing to do that, and I know when I’m lying and when I’m not.

They don’t realize that finally they don’t know when they’re lying, or when they’re not, or what they’re doing. It’s the argument of authority. I am a network news person. Therefore, I can lie.

I think it’s also a larger pathology of this whole American culture where we’re raising children of the upper classes to think that there’s a certain paradigm. You go to a city or a suburb around a city. You enjoy the cultural dynamism of New York, or Minneapolis, or Seattle, or Portland, San Francisco.

You completely divorce yourself from poor people or working class people, or nature. You get in this rat race to excel, and then you go to an Ivy League. It doesn’t really matter if Brown, or Dartmouth, or Stanford, or Harvard is teaching you anything, but like a cow, you’re branded with that BA.

“I have a BA from Brown.” “Oh, I have a BA from Yale,” and then you’ve got entrée into the society where you get these professional jobs. Nobody ever says to the person, “Are you well-rounded? Do you know, if the wind comes from the north or south, is it more likely to rain? Have you ever seen somebody that’s poor? Do you ever have to get along with somebody who doesn’t share your background? Do you feel guilty about that, or not?”

So I think a lot of our problems are that a lot of this, especially white culture of the upper classes, has divorced themselves from poverty, from race, and associates with people of white kind, and they feel guilty about it.

They want us, society, to give them exemption, and how do they get that exemption? By claiming there’s a racist under every bed, or they’re somebody who stinks up Walmart, or is a deplorable, an irredeemable, a clinger, a dregs, a chump, or a Neanderthal to quote Biden and Clinton and Obama.

That gives them psychological recompense for living, in an empirical fashion, it would be called a segregated life.

Mr. Jekielek: So now we’ve come a bit full circle here back to an epistemic crisis, but also, a fundamental doubt, as you already articulated, in what are supposed to be the credible authorities because tons of people that I’ve spoken with say, “Hey, these people are letting us down. We can’t trust them anymore,” Where can we go from here in this sort of a situation? How is that trust earned back?

Mr. Hanson: Yes, where do we go from here is I think we’re going to see certain trends, insidious, slow, but trends nonetheless. I think people are going to say to themselves, “If that person went to the public schools and, say, from five years from now or six years, that person is likely not as well educated as someone who went to a private school, parochial school, or was home-schooled.”

If a person applies for a job with a Harvard or Yale or Stanford degree, it doesn’t mean much anymore. You’d be better off privately hiring somebody from St. John’s, or Thomas Aquinas, or Hillsdale College because we know that in the Ivy League, that degree means nothing now.

It used to be an employer who was cynical would tell you, “Yeah, I hired a guy for my business with a BA from Stanford. I know they don’t teach anything and they’re indoctrinated there, but at least they have SAT scores and GPAs so they did the selection bit for me. They have natural talent, so I’ll just use them, and then I’ll train them the way they should be trained that they never learn because they were woke or whatever.”

Now they don’t even believe that, because they believe that the admissions are no longer meritocratic, that there’s no longer a test score required like an ACT, or SAT, or GPA. It’s just arbitrary. And so I think they’re losing credibility.

The doctors are losing credibility. Where did we have doctors? Where did we have the idea of PhDs? Where did the MD [come from]? It was all a reaction to a mess of free for all thinking and frontierism in the 19th century. People said, “Let’s be systematic and make a meritocracy,” and now we’re in a whole cyclical pattern where we’re saying, “You know what? We didn’t have any police to police our police.”

I really resent a lot of these people, bureaucrats at the highest level of the U.S. government with degrees that were used for arguments from authority, college presidents.

Think of all the bizarre things we’ve heard the last year. How many college presidents have been on a YouTube cut who said, “I just want to say right now that I suffer from honor and white privilege.” You’re thinking, “honor and white privilege.”

Or they’ll say, “I think we live in a racist society here, and it’s here at Stanford. It’s here at Princeton. Don’t think it isn’t.” You’re thinking, okay. If you experience honor and white privilege, why in the hell are you have that job? We can get all kinds of people to take it from you because you didn’t earn it, or we can say, “Well, the government says they can’t give money to places that have racist tendencies. Since you just admitted that Stanford, or Princeton, or Harvard is racist, then don’t take any federal money until you solve the problem.”

This is a lot of virtue signaling and performancing from the wealthy classes because again, it gets back to this fundamental crisis in Western society that these elites then are sort of like Marie Antoinette dressed up as peasants playing around at Versaille because they have lost all authenticity.

They don’t know anything about nature. They don’t know anything about the physical world. They don’t know anything about human nature, and they compensate for it by all of these critical race theories, wokeness, all of this stuff.

We could have survived the virus. We could’ve survived the lockdown. We could’ve survived the first self-induced recession. We may have survived 120 days of coerced riots in U.S. history. We’re not told [it was coerced], but it’s true. We might have survived 100 million people voting without showing up on Election Day. We might have survived the controversy of Don[ald Trump], but not all of them together.

That was a perfect storm. It unleashed a madness within us and every pathology that we had struggled for, the restraints were off. I don’t know if we’re going to get out of it or not.

Mr. Jekielek: So Victor, why in this ideology is there such an inordinate focus on the victim or maybe absolution of apparent victims of accountability? That’s at least what I’m seeing.

Mr. Hanson: That’s a complex question, and I think there’s an old or ancient explanation, and there’s a modern one.

Start with the ancient one. If we were to look at novels, historians, biographers, Suetonius, Petronius, all the way back to Thucydides, there’s a certain recognition that, in the West, when you have a consensual society, and you allow personal expression, and you draw on all members of society contribute, and you have a protection of private property, and you have a legal code that’s not just arbitrary—the whole Western menu—then you start to do two things. You give people security and affluence, and this grows, and grows, and grows, and grows.

People then are no longer worried about dying at night from a marauding tribe crossing the Danube. They’re no longer worried of starving to death. They’re no longer worried that somebody’s going to knock on their door and slit their throat, and they start to do great things. They build the Parthenon, or the Pantheon, or they write Tacitus’ “Histories,” and that was the Western paradigm.

But there were a lot of voices, not just the crazy people like Nietzsche and Hegel and Spengler, but ancient people as well. They said, “You got to be very careful because we’re not programmed to be that way. We have certain instinctual needs. We’re pretty savage people,” Thucydides especially, the thin veneer of civilization.

You start allowing people to be wealthy and leisured, and you take off the constraints, and the constraints are your family, or your traditions, or your religion that say [although] it’s legal to do that and you have physical and material ability to do it, but don’t do it—then you’ve got chaos.

So there was a sense that these Western societies, as they get wealthier and more affluent, especially—we have detours with wars, and plagues, and religious movements, but now we’re in a globalized post-war, postmodern society where the level of affluence and leisure is such that we don’t have these appetites, and people are always going to the next level.

That’s part of it, that we’re just a confused, spoiled group. We’re a collective. Remember the Affordable Care Act pajama boy commercial or the life of Julia where we get these two dysfunctional, prolonged adolescents advising us, a guy with pajamas that’s drinking hot chocolate like a perennial boy who’s like 19, or a young woman who says, “Thanks to the government, and then from the moment I was born, the moment I’ve died, I’ve only been on the government teat,” and this is supposed to be something we all aspire for.

Anybody else in the world would think they’re crazy. Columbus would say, “I’m not going to take a risk.” Charles Lindbergh said, “Where’s my insurance policy? I can’t fly to France. This is too dangerous.” So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve infantilized, made infants out of all of us.

Then it also creates guilt. As I said before, a lot of this is, why do I have so much money? Why do I have so much freedom? Look at that guy over in Africa. Look at that person in Oaxaca, Mexico. They don’t have what I have. Why is that?

If you say, “Take a deep breath, here is something called the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, Classical Greece, and then this led to the Founding, and this is a system that’s available to anybody, and certain people did it, and certain people didn’t. It didn’t have anything to do with race. That’s why you’re privileged and you should help people, but you have to understand that you were born lucky in the West.”

That’s a very hard thing for people to do, apparently. So there’s this intrinsic guilt among Western elites.

What I get really angry, and I think you do, or all of our listeners do, is that this hijacking of success and a noble tradition. So I’m sitting in a house in which my great-great-grandmother came out, northerners from Missouri, after the Civil War.

I never met them. In fact, my grandfather died here in 1976. He was born in the same room in 1890, but I heard stories that he heard from his grandfather about his grandmother. It was heroism how they got in wagons and came out here, how they finally found a railhead.

I just am not going to be prepared at the age of 67 to say, “They were white, and these were non-white. Therefore, they were bad and these people were good.” I don’t accept that infantile reductionism guilt.

I had a father, and his picture’s around here a lot, who flew 40 times in a B29 over Tokyo. This was a racist, militaristic government that was killing 15,000 people a day in Asia and butchered 15 million Chinese. He was on some of the most severe raids there were.

He didn’t wear a parachute when he was over Japan because war is war. They executed you when you bailed out anyway. I’m not going to suddenly say to him, “You did not stop that slaughter. You did not help us win World War II. You did not make it possible for me not to worry about, but you’re a racist because you were white, and you were bombing Asians.”

I’m just not going to do that. I think if everybody just said, “Race is an important facet of all of our lives, but it does not define who we are.” The irony is when people start saying, “Well, World War II was based on segregation,” you think, well, that was something to be embarrassed about.

A democracy should not be hypocritical and not using their African-American populations as frontline soldiers although we did in some cases especially the Red Tail fighters in Italy.

But if you want to talk about racism as being a prime mover of World War II, then you better talk about Germans killing white people because they were “un-Aryan,” or “non-Aryan,” 6 million Jews, 20 million Ukranians and Russians.

Or Japanese killing intersectionally, in intersectional fashion, Chinese because they were not Asians of the right particular race. So what I despise about all of this are these young, social justice branded BA students, or young people, and they want us to reduce the whole rich tapestry of history into one of melodrama, cheap melodrama, “That guy’s bad, he’s good.”

Sherman may have gone all the way into Georgia, freed 30,000 slaves, crushed the Confederacy, went up through the Carolinas, helped Grant’s force lead a surrender, but he said the N-word once; therefore, he’s canceled out.

Finally, you think, okay. Have you ever noticed this? When they tear these statues, why don’t new ones pop up? I’m waiting for them. They say they’re going to change the school name. Every time they take away a name, they give another name, and they take it away because they don’t understand they’ve created this Frankensteinian monster of relativism that says there is no concession that we’re human.

You have to be 99.9999 percent pure, and none of them can make their own standards. So just think for a second. We tear down, I don’t know, Columbus’s statue. Let’s put up Martin Luther King’s statue. Can’t do that. He plagiarized his PhD thesis. He treated women in an awful manner, so his whole wonderful career is canceled out.

Well, how about Malcolm X, he’s more authentic as a racial frontline fighter. No, no, no, no, no. He used violence, he hurt people. We could go on, and on, and on.

But once you start to destroy hierarchy, rules, norms, traditions and say that somebody is going to be canceled because they’re not perfect and therefore they’re not good, then let’s see the people you’re going to replace.

We’re starting to see this in the Biden administration because they’re starting to nominate people as correctives for white supremacy, and guess what? Hunter Biden used the N-word. Joe Biden said, “You ain’t black.” Joe Biden has a whole litany of sexual harassment problems. We have people in the civil rights division of the Justice Department who have said a lot of racist things.

And so if we were to apply the same standards that they are censoring and ruining lives themselves, then they only have one out and that’s critical race theory, and critical race theory says, “Racists cannot be racist,” and the only anecdote, according to Mr. Kennedy, for racists in the past are to be racist in the present, and to be racists in the future.

If there’s a yang of racism, then you need a yang of racism. So therefore, we want people who say, like Sarah Jeong on The New York Times, that “I love treating white people like a dog. I consider them like a dog urinating.”

Or we had this graduation speaker that took on the Israelis and the Palestinians, and just full of hate, and that’s the only way you can justify it. What I’m getting at, in a very clumsy way, is this relativism matters because it’s essential to this woke movement, that they not be judged by the standards they judge others.

Mark Zuckerberg can be an authentic social justice champion of the underclass, pour $500 million into select precincts to alter the election, that he thinks he’s going to alter it, but he’s okay to build 57,000 square foot home in a pristine, identical white, and that’s where we are.

You have to have exemption because this relativist movement can never meet its own standards.

Mr. Jekielek: One apparent exemption that has been a lot on my mind, my father-in-law being a Holocaust survivor, is this apparent pass for anti-Semitism that we’ve been actually seeing in past weeks as if it was just there, and suddenly came up out of, well, I won’t say nowhere, but, what do you make of that?

Mr. Hanson: A lot of things. When I was in college and as a young adult, the left always said they hated Israel. I’d always ask myself, why are almost half the resolutions at the UN aimed at Israel? Or if you are so worried about annexation, why don’t people say, “Well, Turkey’s taken half of Cyprus?”

Or if they’re worried about refugees and displaced people, how about the 13 million East Prussians that walked back to Germany. They’re not saying, “I have the keys to my home in Danzig and these Poles call it the Gdańsk and my German ancestors were there. That didn’t happen.

Or the Volga? Nope. Do you and I worry about the Volga Germans that Stalin displaced? Why was it only the Palestinian? So then I said to myself, it’s because Israel is Jewish. They apply a particular standard to it.

I used to think that, and then they would always say—they meaning the left, the anti-Israeli left—they say, “Well, we just don’t like Israel. It’s nothing to do with Jews.” Then, I became, years ago, I said, “No, it’s because you hate Jews that you hate Israel, not because you hate Israel, but you like Jews. You hate Jews for a variety of reasons, and therefore, you hate Israel, and you apply standards to it that you don’t apply to any other society.”

Why do you hate Jews? It goes back to Roman times with the diaspora, but you could argue that Jews to survive when they were spread throughout with the destruction of the temple, under Vespasian, that they had to cling together.

They had a religion that did not accept that Jesus was the Messiah, so they were spread throughout Europe and they were denied land-owning. They were denied aristocratic titles, and they did not have opportunities to gain influence and social standing commensurate with their talent.

And so they turned to, I don’t know, banking, or precious metals. So their names were suddenly Mr. Satin and Mr. Silver and Mr. Gold. That prejudice, generalization, and stereotyping was mostly by the right and it was opposed by the civil libertarian left, the enlightenment.

They would say, “Well, wait a minute, Mr. Silver, da, da, da, da, da on all the quantifiable data is actually a sterling citizen. This prejudice is stupid.” That’s what I grew up with. I had wonderful parents, and I never met somebody who was Jewish until I was 18 that I knew of.

I would come from, I’d say, “Wow, I met all these people who are Jewish.” My parents would say, “So what?” There is an old anti-Semitism prejudice. I didn’t know what it was. But then I noticed it switched. It wasn’t some nutty guy telling me that the raisin market back East was fixed by a bunch of Jews in Rome and that’s why we didn’t get good money for raisins. Those guys were gone.

It was, I’d walk across campus, and I’d see PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. I’d see a picture on the Berkeley campus of a hook-nosed Jew, or I’d see people say, “F Israel.” I’d say, “Well, this doesn’t make any sense. It’s a constitutional society. Why do they hate?”

So the left began to hate Jews. Then I noticed another thing, that many of the people who were voicing this hatred were people of color, or at least they identified that way.

They then say, “We can’t be anti-Semitic because we are victims ourselves.” But they were the most anti-Semitic, and they got exemption from the larger culture, and so right now the threat is, of anti-Semitism, is a respectable, academic, intellectual people of color as well movement, not exclusively, movement among the left-wing elite and there’s no New York Times, Washington Post, NPR to audit it because they are part of it in their hatred of Israel.

The irony, who are the people who are objecting to this? They tend to be evangelical Christians. They tend to be conservatives. They tend to be the illiberal. But I can guarantee you if you wore a distinctive, orthodox garb or beard, and you went to a Trump rally, you would be treated much better than if you went to a Black Lives Matter rally. I would stake my life on that.

I’m not trying to denigrate Black Lives Matter, but I’m just saying that the so-called Christian or conservative movement will more closely police itself on matters of anti-Semitism now, and the woke, black, critical theory, whatever term we use for the black intellectual elite, they will be less so inclined.

I’m telling you that every time we hear an anti-Semitic proclamation announcement, speech, it comes from people in Congress who either have a map with Israel or not on it, or it’s just the Benjamin’s baby. In almost every case, they will be from a protected minority group and they feel that they have no deterrent worries, and that they can say whatever they want. And they’re correct—they can.

Not only that, but the people who will say, “Wait a minute, you’re applying a standard to Israel that you would never apply to any other society because you have a deep-seated dislike of the people who live in Israel because they’re Jewish.” They’re going to say, “How dare you, that’s Islamophobic, that’s racist,” and that’s where we are. Nobody has the guts to say it, but it’s true.

Mr. Jekielek: A few people that I’ve spoken with had said that one of the causes of this is that Israel has been, I think, it was described to me as just remarkably successful against all odds and that itself, again, perhaps it’s this attack on merit.

Mr. Hanson: Yeah, we’re going back to what we discussed earlier, that the West, because of its unique combination of human freedom, constitutional government, meritocracy, and free market capitalism, creates a lot of leisure and wealth and becomes very powerful, and can project power, intellectual power, cultural power.

That can be everything from rap music to disco in my generation or Christopher Columbus. So the Aztecs are not going to sail up into a river in Spain, and you’re not going to, the Zulus are not going to mount an invasion of the United Kingdom, not that the Mongols didn’t do it earlier.

But the point I’m making is Western civilization, it’s not a moral question. It has a dynamism and people were guilty about that. They want to know why, and they want to apologize, some of them.

Remember, I think her name was Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House, of Dickens. She’s a character in the novel and her kids are all sloppy, they’re not washed, they’re not literate, and yet she’s a member of the Victorian upper class because she’s always worried about the plight of a poor group suffering from British imperialism around 1850 in Africa or Asia.

Dickens is trying to show you that a person who cannot handle the concrete pathologies and their own myths because they’re messy and dirty and they’re hard to resolve, will find an excuse as an abstract, distant problem they can’t solve, and that way they square the circle of their impotence and guilt. I think that’s a lot of what the West does.

In the case of Israel, for me, it’s always 1967. Prior to 1967, it was surrounded by all of these hostile powers. There was pan-Arabism, was sweeping the globe. The Soviet Union had armed all of its enemies, and Nasserism. It was going to be extinct, and these were the children of the Holocaust, and so we were pro-Israeli, and France was too.

Britain less so because of the colonial direct interest in Jordan, and then suddenly they won the ’67 war, and they said, “You know what? This is the third war. We’re not going to do it again, so we’re going to keep some of this land and use it to negotiate,” and then suddenly they became the oppressor.

They were too powerful, too successful, too Western. … It used to be, we hate Israel because it’s successful. We hate Israel because it’s Western. Now it’s, we hate Israel because it’s white. You’re seeing the woke movement saying, “This is an outpost of white supremacy against people of color,” and this racial reductionism that is wokeism.

Mr. Jekielek: Yes, I’ve heard the term white-adjacent, which is, that’s an interesting term.

Mr. Hanson: Yes. The one that scares me is “whiteness” because that has a pedigree with Jewishness. In the Third Reich, especially before World War II when Hitler created these crackpot theories, Alfred Rosenberg, etc., and they built on 19th century German anti-Semitism, they came up obviously with a problem, and that is everybody knew Jews that were wonderful people, and some people were half Jewish and a quarter Jewish.

Even when they got to the point with thinking that they were going to wear stars eventually, they said to themselves, “Why did that come in practice?” Well, they said, “Well, when we go to Eastern Europe and the poor parts, they’re going to be distinguished as Orthodox Jews.”

But here, it’s impossible to distinguish them. Therefore, we’re going to ostracize them. We’re going to trace their lineage. We’re going to go, and then certain people within the Nazi ranks said, “Well, wait a minute. If we can’t tell who they are, then why are they any different? If we like them, why are they bad?”

That had to be suppressed, so that they came up with this thing called Jewishness because they suffered from Jewishness, not because they looked different, or not because they’re Orthodox Jews, so we have to identify them through careful analysis of their genetic code, or their, not genetic code, but their lineage, or who they associate with, or we’re going to trace their nomenclature because we can’t find out otherwise.

But we have to say that they suffer from Jewishness, and what was Jewishness? It was communism. It was pacifism. It was usury. It was these blood libels, and this whiteness now is, “Well, we can’t, this white guy, my neighbor has been really nice to me, and I’ve never heard the N-word by these people, so we’re going to have to say they all suffer from whiteness and that is a pathological, genetic defect at birth.”

So if I were to say, “You suffer from Hispanicness, or Latinoism, or black,” what would people think? It would be one of the most racist things in the world. This is the wages of what happens when we make race essential rather than incidental to who you are. Individuals vanish, and we become cookie cutter versions of our imagination and fears.

Mr. Jekielek: Victor, we’ve talked a little bit about people pushing back after this very, very, I think anyone would agree, crazy year of 2020. As we finish up, what do you see happening now?

Mr. Hanson: I think we’re at a crossroads and people are afraid. In every workplace in America and every teacher’s lounge, every campus, every political caucus, we have people doing this.

Who is going to win? Which side is the greater threat? If I call this person a racist, will the people who hail me and applaud me, even though there’s no evidence of it, be more advantageous to my career, to my safety, to my income.

Or will the people who say, “That’s a false accusation, how dare you? You’re a McCarthiac” or this way, and they don’t know the answer to it. It’s like during the French Revolution: who’s going to win, the Jacobins or the Thermadors, or the Trotskyites, or the Stalinites, or the Bolsheviks, or the Mensheviks, or the Czarists.

So it’s very important, if you believe in constitutional government and the unique exceptionalism—it’s a redundancy, but that’s what it is—of the United States, that everybody pushed the needle a little bit, and how do you do that?

You have to speak out, and you have to use language that’s graphic and empirical. So if somebody says—and I’m going to quote now indirectly—if a writer in “The Root” magazine says, “White people are responsible for every pathology from the melting of the ice caps, to environmental damage, to viruses, epidemics.”

Or if, I think his name is Mr. Mystal, a Harvard Law graduate, says, “When I come out of my quarantine, I really don’t want to see white people. I got used to not seeing them. I just don’t want to see them anymore.”

Or if you’re a professor at Barnard and you write a novel: can you imagine my dream is to have a room full of white people and say, “You’re all going to be gassed.”

Or if I’m going to be a professor, a psychiatrist, I’m going to go to Yale. I’m going to give a talk, and I’m going to say, “I have dreams of taking a revolver and collectively shooting white people in the head.”

That’s pass for permissible discourse? It’s a free country. I have no problem with them saying it if that’s what they want to say, but they then have to deserve the wages and the wages are: you are a racist, and you’re a pathological racist, and you’re a cruel person, and I’m going to tell you that.

I don’t care what you say to me. You have no way, I’m a free person. I’m liberated. There’s nothing you can do to hurt me. Take my money away. Take my life away. I’m not going to live on my knees. When 51 percent of the people say that, it will pass, and then we’ll have a period of recriminations. People are going to say, “Wait a minute, you were in that mob.”

It’s kind of like out West when the entire mob comes up on Saturday night and Gary Cooper or John Wayne or somebody has got a shotgun. He said, “You are not going to go lynch that guy in the jail.” They say, “a yea yea yea,” and then the sheriff comes out and says, “Well, you may get me but da, da, da, da, da,” and then it dissipates. The next day they see people at the store or on a horse, and they go like this. “I wasn’t part of the mob.” You have to change the whole dynamic.

I think it’s going to happen because people are leaving a written and oral record of what they’re saying, and they’re so caught up in the frenzy and the madness. They have no idea what they’re saying. I know what I’m saying right now, and I think I can listen to this recording and not have to apologize for it because I’m not being racist. I’m not being cruel. I’m not lying.

But they are doing these things, and it’s going to be with them forever. It’s going to be a record of a period in 2020 to ’21 when a small group of very cruel, careerist, selfish people tried to destroy the United States’ traditions and make life miserable for people who used to get along with each other.

They’re going to pay a price. I hope so, because they deserve it. I’m going to speak up and people in my family are going to speak up, and you should speak up, and our audience should speak up because we know what happens when we don’t.

When you don’t speak up, you get the Robespierre brothers and the French Revolution. When you don’t speak up, you get the Leninists taking over a movement from Korinsky to have a consensual society in Russia. When you don’t speak up, you get something far worse than the nationalists in China, you get Mao. When you don’t speak up, you get the McCarthyites running wild in Hollywood, and you get the Salem witch trial on a continental scale.

So we have no choice. It’s a consensual society, a free society, and the abyss, a return to the Dark Ages. That’s where we’re headed if we don’t have the courage to stop it. If we don’t have the courage to stop it, we deserve it.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, Victor Davis Hanson, it’s so good to have you on.

Mr. Hanson: Thank you for having me again.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

You can also follow American Thought Leaders on Parler, Facebook, or YouTube. If you’d like to donate to support our work, you can do so here.

Follow Epoch TV on Facebook and Twitter.

Read Less

Follow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek

TiLTNews Network