Combatting the Attack on Traditional Values

Combatting the Attack on Traditional Values

by American Broadcasting CommUnity – ABCU|8

Traditional values promote the sound functioning of families and strengthen the fabric of society. [2] This is not complicated! Society is comprised of people with finite lifetimes. Thus, society must be continuously regenerated via reproduction to create new individuals.

How do babies acquire the cultural knowledge to mature into adults? They learn by imitation, plus overt teaching from elders.

For thousands of years, the best structure for children’s upbringing is identical to the basic unit of procreation: one male and one female, unified in purpose, and bonded by love into a stable nuclear family. Families are formed to support and nurture kids, and to educate them. Moreover, humans are biologically hard-wired to facilitate nuclear families. Marriage and family may not be for everyone, but it is the natural path for most. Henry Makow, Ph.D., writes, “A woman expresses love in terms of surrender, i.e. trust. She empowers her husband by accepting his leadership, and by believing in him. Women exchange power for love. They want to be dominated by their husband’s love.” “When a woman surrenders to her husband, she gives him the power to grant her wishes, or not. He does not exploit, control or dominate. He respects her individuality and freedom. He wants her to want to be his.He consults and nurtures. He makes the final decision. Every family needs a head. A creature with two heads is a monster.” [4] This is not a religious doctrine, but an accurate insight into human psychology.

Think of culture as a container for passing on the aggregate knowledge and experiences of past generations. It encompasses the social behavior and norms (acceptable conduct) of human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of individuals in these groups. [3] And Western culture is the heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, artifacts and technologies that originated in Europe, including countries whose histories are strongly connected to Europe by immigration, colonization, or influence. [5]

Ivory-tower academics and social justice warriors demanding automatic rejection of Western culture are really advocating the death of our society. It is ludicrous to expect each generation to reinvent agriculture, science, mathematics, literature, engineering, art, music, etc. from scratch every 20 years. Our vast cultural “memory” is what sets us apart from animals and savages. Instead of rejecting our culture, we should reject the insidious forces that are degrading it.

We are in the advanced stages of a long-term conspiracy to subvert Western civilization. 20th century “modernism” was a hoax designed to strip people of their familial, cultural and religious identity before enslaving them in a new dark age. [1] The central tactic is an anti-family agenda to dissolve the bonds of cohesiveness within society [1]. Social disintegration leads to psychological confusion [1] in which homosexual and transgender confusion are considered chic [4] and even admirable.

Feminism says women should become more like men, seizing tools like aggression and power, rather than employing feminine tools like subtlety and influence that respect men’s natural authority. This in turn robs [castrates] men of their natural role as protector and leader of a family. “Two people cannot become one if they have competing agendas.” [4]

Promiscuity and pornography destroy the intimacy that bonds a man and a woman. “Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and dedicated to rearing children; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake. Porn is creating new generations of heterosexuals who behave like homosexuals” [6] I.e., promiscuously, without the intent to raise a family or pass on the cultural knowledge that underpins society’s continuation.

These and similar tactics cause women and men to reject one another, so that neither can get the love or stability needed for a fulfilling adult life. Without stable nuclear families, what few children are born lack guidance on their roles and responsibilities in society. This, in turn, engenders further cultural degradation.

The way forward is a return to our cultural roots. Founding groups should reassert their values and traditions as the common glue. Minorities should be welcomed, but we should not let them remake society in their own image. [1]

Above all, each person should reexamine their personal attitudes in light of traditional values, lest we inadvertently adopt enemy tactics as our own beliefs. We must study our own culture and embrace what is good in it. Understanding the attacks on Western civilization will enable us to counteract them. By taking our forebears’ wisdom to heart, and incorporating our ancestors’ virtues into our personal lives, we are on a path to rebuild society.


1. []


3. []

4. H. Makow, Wife Must Surrender to Husband to Reach Unity, []

5. []

6. H. Makow, Why All Porn is Gay, []



by Anon

The current battle over social media censorship can be traced back to origins in the CIA’s Project Mockingbird. This article will argue that Project Mockingbird did not terminate after the Cold War but continued when the dot-com bubble enabled social media tech giants to pick up the mantle and continue campaigns of social influence.

The dot-com bubble was not an organic phenomenon. It arose from a more sinister purpose: to achieve a complete takeover of worldwide media and suppress dissenting voices. By whom, you may ask? Did they succeed? We speculate that the bubble was deliberately created, and its entire trajectory planned, to give certain highly-placed insiders absolute control over what has arguably become our most key communications sector. Nowhere is that stranglehold more evident than in today’s battle over social media censorship that is playing out in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

But let’s start by examining the bubble as it is typically explained.

“The dot-com bubble was a stock market bubble caused by excessive speculation in Internet-related companies in the late 1990s, a period of massive growth in the use and adoption of the Internet.” [1] The Telecommunications Act of 1996 [2] was expected to generate profitable new technologies. Investors were eager to invest, at any valuation, in any Internet-related company. Venture capital flowed freely, and investment banks profiting from initial public offerings fueled additional speculation by encouraging investment in the sector. Investors overlooked traditional metrics—sky-high debt-to-equity ratios and negligible earnings per share—in hopes of cashing in. Stock prices kept levitating, as hot money rushed into the new sector in a speculative frenzy, creating a bubble that kept inflating. Media commentary hyping the potential of dot-com companies pervaded the airwaves.

Federal government assistance, in the form of venture capital, promoted dozens of key companies in the rapidly-expanding telecomm sector. The bubble made well-placed insiders instant billionaires, enabling them to secure present and future dominance over what has become the most influential communications sector.

Fullsized image


In-Q-Tel (formerly Peleus and In-Q-It) is a not-for-profit venture capital firm in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of equipping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, with the latest information technology. [3], [4]

IQT was conceived around 1998 as a new way for the CIA to acquire and fund new technologies useful to the national security mission. It was established as a legal entity in February, 1999.

“IQT identifies startups with potential for high impact on national security and works closely with them to deliver new capabilities that our government partners need to boost their technological edge.” Its own website declares that IQT invests in commercially-focused, venture capital-backed startups, identifying and adapting off-the-shelf products capable of deployment in 6 to 36 months. Currently it focuses on data analytics, cybersecurity, AI/machine learning, ubiquitous computing, IT solutions, communications, materials/electronics, the commercialization of space, power & energy, and biotechnology. [5] “IQT works side-by-side with the venture capital community to identify cutting-edge technology that has the potential for commercial success, but more importantly, the potential for high national security impact.”

This approach finds and delivers critical, innovative technology quickly and cost effectively. In-Q-Tel’s private-sector participation, funding, and acquisition of cutting-edge technologies is not necessarily sinister. Like any tool, technology has the potential for good or evil, depending on how it is used. But who has oversight over the independent nonprofit corporation besides its own board of directors?


Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program dating to circa World War II that enlisted journalists, American and worldwide, to spread propaganda—fake news—to manipulate public opinion. [6] (Sound familiar?) Mockingbird enlisted journalists and even clergy in intelligence-gathering roles. Cooperative media companies included CBS, Time, New York Times, ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek, Mutual Broadcasting System, Miami Herald, Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.

Senator Frank Church’s April 1976 committee uncovered CIA ties to foreign and domestic news media. [7] It also brought to light the existence of the CIA’s infamous heart-attack gun. The Committee heard that former CIA director William Colby had instructed, in 1973, that “as a general policy, the Agency will not make any clandestine use of staff employees of U.S. publications which have a substantial impact or influence on public opinion.” In 1976, then-CIA Director George H. W. Bush announced that the CIA would no longer “enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” Those weasel-words do not rule out delegating such functions to subcontractors, affiliated entities, unaccredited writers, or the use of propaganda in specific instances rather than “as a general policy”.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Carl Bernstein’s acclaimed exposé uncovering Operation Mockingbird was published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977. [8] Did these exposures end the clandestine program, or did it morph into a less-recognizable form? Has the drastic consolidation of media ownership and advent of social media simply become Mockingbird version 2?

How can the public ascertain if past CIA abuses have been rectified and are not occurring through, perhaps, its technology alter-ego IQT, or through public companies that sprang to life when infused with IQT venture capital? The Congressional committee with intelligence oversight responsibility, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, has shown it cannot be trusted. Mr. Schiff has lied about classified intelligence with which he was entrusted in his “Gang of Eight” [9] role. In the Trump administration, the CIA is under new management (directors Mike Pompeo, then Gina Haspel). The Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, is new in that role. Should the American people trust our national security organizations, in light of the long history of past abuses?

Today’s world, rife with fake news, and big tech collecting and selling user information to target the wary public, exhibits striking parallels.


Whose brilliant idea was it to create a honeypot so seductive, so ubiquitous, that people worldwide would commit all their significant life events, people connections, likes and dislikes, photographs, etc. to an online repository? Such a database would surely simplify intelligence-gathering. When the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense conceived the project, they called it LifeLog. Some posit that LifeLog simply burrowed underground by transforming itself into Facebook.

LifeLog’s 2003 bid solicitation proposed “an ontology-based (sub)system that captures, stores, and makes accessible the flow of one person’s experience in and interactions with the world”. It aimed to trace the threads of a person’s life by capturing “all of a subject’s experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mails viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone”. [10] It sought to compile a database of every activity and relationship, even credit card purchases, web sites visited, content of telephone calls, e-mails and instant messages, scans of hardcopies faxed or mailed, books and magazines read, television and radio selections, physical location recorded via wearable GPS sensors, and biomedical data from wearable sensors. The purpose was to identify “preferences, plans, goals, and other markers of intentionality” [11] – in other words, to anticipate everything that a person might do as a result of exercising their “free will”. If all causes and effects are identified, could an organization manipulate the causes in order to produce specific effects – i.e. to deprive people of their free will by manipulating everything they see and hear?

The LifeLog program was canceled in February, 2004. [12] In a peculiar “coincidence”, Facebook was launched on February 4, 2004. By 2009, it had become the world’s most used social networking service.[13] Can one prove that Facebook is the direct successor of LifeLog? Can one disprove it? You be the judge.


The existence of extreme censorship and exclusively left-leaning political bias by Big Tech is not debatable—despite testimony from Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at a July 27, 2020 antitrust hearing, downplaying the practice with virtue-signalling and disingenuous statements on their commitment to serve users.

Insiders and whistleblowers have revealed administrative tools that Twitter uses for censorship. [14] This year Twitter officially admitted its controversial practice of shadowbanning—limiting the distribution or visibility of user posts in a way that’s difficult to detect—via updated terms of service.

Congressman Jim Jordan wrote to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in advance of the July 27th hearing seeking data on its censorship practices. “Recent actions suggest that Twitter is increasingly discriminating against conservative voices on its platform,” Jordan wrote. As an example, he cited President Trump’s tweet on absentee voting, which Twitter fact-checkers alleged to contain “potentially misleading information.” Jordan refuted the allegation with facts from the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, which stated as far back as 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” in American elections. More recently, Obama’s Commission on Election Administration likewise found that “when [voter fraud] does occur, absentee ballots are often the method of choice.” [15]

Who knows which 3-letter agencies, or their black-budget counterparts, are still entrenched at CIA, In-Q-Tel, Facebook, Twitter, Google, or other social media giants—burrowed in deeply like a blood-sucking tick and lurking in the shadows, while subtly exerting control? Or even worse, have private entities totally outside of government oversight taken over the role of guiding society according to globalist goals?

It does appear that the CIA’s intentions, when it formed Project Mockingbird, were shady at best. Did the marriage of convenience with mainstream media giants turn into an abusive relationship in which MSM and Big Tech got the upper hand, sucking up the venture capital fertilizer and growing beyond expectations, a virtual Jack-and-the-Beanstalk? When examining covert programs, it is difficult to assess intent. Motivations are often concealed under layers of ambiguity and disinformation. It is conceivable, but not absolutely provable, that governmental intelligence-gathering did morph into the social media profiling that infests society today.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [16] protects online platforms from liability for their users’ posts. The key phrase says “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This law has shielded platforms from suit, allowing them to moderate users’ content without responsibility for defamatory content.

With President Trump’s May 28, 2020 executive order [17] declaring internet companies “publishers” when they use their extraordinary powers to regulate speech and inject their own editorial bias by suppressing conservative speech, we are now seeing the next phase of information warfare play out.

The stranglehold that companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. had over information flows played a huge role in political victories by the Radical Left, that resulted in the presidency of Barack Obama and the continued domination by globalist, big-government interests.

Will President Trump’s order to reassert Americans’ first-amendment right of free speech be effective in returning our society to a more balanced posture, where voices from both the Right and the Left have equal opportunities for debate and discourse? Will a new “truth ecosystem” like the American Broadcasting CommUnity (ABCU|8) be effective in freeing us from the oppressive media sector? Can Americans’ moribund acceptance of censorship be overturned through a resurrection of free speech, honest journalism, and courteous, lively debate?


1. Wikipedia, “The Dot-com bubble”,

2. Wikipedia,

3. Wikipedia, “In-Q-Tel”,

4. Central Intelligence Agency, “In-Q-Tel: A New Partnership Between the CIA and the Private Sector,”

5. IQT website,

6. Operation Mockingbird and the CIA’s History of Media Manipulation,

7. Full Documents of Operation Mockingbird,

8. Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media”,

9. The Gang of Eight is a colloquial term for a set of eight leaders within the United States Congress who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the executive branch.

10. NY Times, “Pentagon Explores a New Frontier In the World of Virtual Intelligence”, May 30, 2003.

11. “DARPA’s bid solicitation for LifeLog”, Internet Archive,

12., “15 Years Ago, the Military Tried to Record Whole Human Lives. It Ended Badly”,

13., “Who Invented Facebook?”,

14., “Leaked screenshots appear to show internal Twitter tool that can blacklist users from search and trends”,

15. Breitbart News, “Jim Jordan Demands Twitter Disclose ‘Extremely Alarming’ Censorship Practices”,

16. “Communications Decency Act”, 47 US Code §230,

17. White House, “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship,”

Cognitive Dissonance: The Deep State’s Last Stand?

Cognitive Dissonance: The Deep State’s Last Stand?

by Anon

Fullsized image

People are undergoing a severe existential crisis due to the coexistence—in an identical but impossibly incongruent space—of two opposing and competing sets of information. Both sets simultaneously claim a FACTUAL label, and both are presented by once-trusted mainstream media.

When “facts on the ground” do not match what trusted pundits (seen as “friends”) are saying, the traumatized human mind retreats into a powerful existential protective mode, compelled by the need to maintain even a false sense of sanity.

Friends and loved ones who have long trusted mainstream media pundits, believing them always truthful, are traumatized as it has become very clear, to the awakened, that MSM is lying about literally everything.

Those who continued to trust the MSM, those who cannot reconcile all the glaring externally-verifiable but contradictory “facts” with what MSM tells them, those who cannot fit the glaring contradictory facts-on-the-ground into the same mental space as the mendacious words of their beloved “pundits”, now find their precious but factually-deficient world view forced into an impossible contradiction. How can a trusted world view share mental space with outrageous lies?

They see only two ways to escape. The first will destroy their world view and change their lives forever. The second lets them to keep their flagging world view.

They could abandon their faith in MSM pundits (and along with it, their failing world view), and admit to existential devastation, and choose to see the truth. This would require admitting they have been lied to.

Some will cling to their failing reality at all costs, becoming completely and insanely blind to the obvious. Those whose trauma or fear exceeds their ability to choose the first path descend into cognitive dissonance, becoming blind to reality, no matter how glaring or obvious the incongruity. It is a type of temporary insanity.

Friends and family who witness their loved ones’ astounding descent into insanity should realize they are seeing a sort of crude mental or spiritual survival tactic—a product of our incredibly creative human minds.

For example, this mental survival tactic would serve an innocent child very well (temporarily at least), in allowing the child to survive horrific torture relatively unscathed, as far as visible scars go. In fact, this type of drastic emergency mental protective measure is precisely described by MKUltra mind control techniques and is well understood by the mainstream media, the Deep State, and the CIA. Torture is inflicted on a subject and then a mental “out” is provided to the victim by the torturer. The child chooses the “out” because it is their only means of escape. They can—mentally at least—float above their torture.

It is an example of devils forcing angels to use a last-resort tactic.

In every single MSM newscast, we now see the deliberate and calculated use by the Dark Forces of trauma, to force people into a state of cognitive dissonance. Smiling “friendly” icons purporting to be “allies” deliberately state things which even the most cursory examination of easily-observable truth demonstrates as false. Yet the lies are calmly stated with absolute conviction, behind masks resembling absolute, perfectly-manufactured false sincerity. (Juan on “The Five” with Greg Gutfield on Fox is a prime example of this.)

This forces anyone who hangs onto false hope straight into cognitive dissonance, effectively shutting down any information contradicting the desired narrative. And this is exactly the effect intended by those who are deliberately perpetrating the cognitive dissonance.

Now maybe you can understand why so many people appear to be insane these days.

DHS Study Sheds Light on COVID-19 Best Practices

DHS Study Sheds Light on COVID-19 Best Practices

by: Anon

In March and April, the Department of Homeland Security studied the effect of environmental conditions — temperature, light and humidity — on the COVID-19 virus. [1]

Bill Bryant, director of Science and Technology, presented the findings on April 23, 2020. [2], [3], [4] “Our most striking observation to date is the powerful effect that solar light appears to have on killing the virus — on surfaces and in the air. Increasing the temperature and humidity, or both, is generally less favorable to the virus.”

DHS studied virus survival on non-porous hard surfaces such as door handles and stainless steel. They also studied its survival in aerosols — saliva droplets from sneezes and coughs.

Virus survival is measured in terms of half-life: the interval in which half the virus particles are eliminated.

Fullsized image

Tests on non-porous surfaces:

· (A) On indoor surfaces with 20% (low) humidity and no sunlight, virus survived the longest, with a half-life of 18 hours.

· (B) Raising the humidity to 80% cut the half-life by two-thirds to 6 hours.

· (C) Then raising the temperature to 95°F cut half-life to 1 hour.

· (D) On surfaces in summer-like conditions of 70-75°F, 80% humidity and bright sunlight, half-life was sharply reduced to only 2 minutes. Virus was eliminated over 500 times faster compared with (A).

The same tests were done on respiratory droplets.

· (E) Half-life in aerosols, in 20% humidity, 70-75°F, and no sunlight, was around 60 minutes. That is, virus in aerosols disappeared 18 times faster than on indoor surfaces under conditions (A).

· (F) Adding summer-like sunlight cut the half-life down to about 1.5 minutes. Sunlight eliminated the virus 40 times faster than (E), and 720 times faster than (A).

The virus survives best on surfaces in dry indoor conditions. It does not survive as well in saliva droplets. And it dies the quickest in the presence of direct sunlight under these conditions. Summarizing the aerosol data, Mr. Bryan said, “in a room, 70 to 75 degrees, 20 percent humidity, low humidity, the half-life is about an hour. But you get outside, and it cuts down to a minute and a half. A very significant difference when it gets hit with UV rays. And, Mr. President, while there are many unknown links in the COVID-19 transmission chain, we believe these trends can support practical decision making to lower the risks associated with the virus.”

The data has stunning implications. It suggests that Americans worried about virus can benefit from spending more time outdoors in sunlight, humidity, and warm summer temperatures. It suggests that outdoor mask mandates and prohibition of normal summertime outdoor activities could promote the spread of virus, not contain it.

Mr. Bryan then discussed experiments on disinfecting environmental surfaces. “We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach and isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go. If you rub it, it goes away even faster. We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva.”

Fullsized image

· Heat and Humidity Suppress COVID-19 indoors and outdoors

· Move Activities Outside – sunlight impedes virus transmission

· Commonly Available Disinfectants (Bleach & Isopropyl Alcohol) work to kill the virus. (This third point depicting a spray bottle was obviously about disinfecting hard surfaces.)

The mainstream media spun the DHS presentation immediately. [5], [6] The study contradicted the globalists’ goal of forcing heathy individuals to stay indoors and refrain from normal summer activities, with a short-term goal of maximizing the death count and a long-term goal of justifying fraud-laden universal vote-by-mail this autumn.

One article assaulted Mr. Bryan’s integrity by calling him a “non-scientist” and attacking his military background.[7] The writer begs to differ: military background is relevant in defense against biological agents. DHS’s innovative multidisciplinary approach examines problems from all sides, whereas medical research limits itself to a narrow silo where the answer is always more expensive and profitable drugs.

The media instantly jumped on President Trump’s subsequent questions to Mr. Bryan and the task force doctors. The President asked two separate questions [9]:

(1) Whether light could somehow be introduced into the body to kill virus (it can, according to a new treatment protocol) [8]

(2) Whether research should investigate other potential ways to kill virus using disinfectants.

In light of DHS’s “best practices” slide, Mr. Trump’s disinfectant question was obviously about cleaning environmental surfaces. The press maliciously conflated the two separate questions to imply that the President wanted people injected with bleach. By twisting the President’s remarks, plainly intended to spur outside-the-box thinking, the media managed to almost completely sweep this groundbreaking research under the rug.

The First Amendment enshrines our right to discuss these matters freely and to form our own opinions on research that could have a bearing on our health.

In light of the data, shouldn’t we be spending plenty of time outside in sunlight, humidity, and heat, without a mask?


1. DHS initiating crucial research to mitigate COVID-19,


3. Virus does less well in sunlight and warm, humid conditions,

4. DHS Science and Technology Directorate collaborates with CDC, FDA, HHS, and DoD to study, characterize, analyze, and develop countermeasures for biological threats against the homeland

5. ‘Sunlight won’t magic its way into your lungs to fight coronavirus’: Scientists rubbish Donald Trump’s claim hitting the body with UV rays could cure the illness after President rolled out unscrutinised Homeland Security study claiming they kill the virus,

6. Coronavirus dies in SUNLIGHT in minutes, groundbreaking Homeland Security study claims,

7. Homeland Security official who detailed effect of temperature on coronavirus isn’t a scientist but has a long military background,

8. Cedars-Sinai-Developed ‘Healight’ Medical Device Platform Technology Being Studied as a Potential First-in-Class COVID-19 Treatment,

9. THE PRESIDENT: So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting. ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could. THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.

Burning Books One Word at a Time

Burning Books One Word at a Time

by: Anon

Fullsized image

These days our culture is pervaded by lies that are promoted as true. Daily, the Left introduces new distortions of language to support their latest ideology. The debasement of language is not accidental but purposeful. An insidious agenda underpins this trend.

People cannot make sound judgments without a pool of true facts to reason about. When deprived of facts, the resulting cognitive cage is no less a prison. The subversion of language could enslave our minds. Unless we are vigilant, America could be defeated not with a bang but a whimper.

Children quickly learn not to touch a hot stove, or suffer a burn. If new words were substituted, would touching the burner suddenly become safe for believers? Obviously not. Unpopular truths are facts disliked to the point of rejection. But disliking a fact does not make it any less true. Rejecting facts is a characteristic of mental illness. Liberal ideologues want to prohibit consideration of objective truths that do not fit their agenda. “Unpopular truths” are on the chopping block, to be replaced by new “politically correct” expressions.

The mainstream media parrot their globalist masters’ script, while universities and businesses pander to the same ideology. They hope incessant repetition will gain acceptance for the lies, and unpopular truths will be forgotten. We are told that “men” can have menstrual periods and bear children. That censorship of conservatives by Big Tech isn’t censorship, if it serves the interest of globalists. That cross-dressing or surgery changes a person’s sex. That burning down a federal courthouse is a peaceful demonstration. That corrupt and demented senior Joe Biden could run the country. That Islam is a religion of peace. That victimhood is a noble and desirable condition. And many believe.

Schools, libraries, and other publicly-funded institutions boost the new dogmas. Grotesque transvestites are presented as role models. Abhorrent sexual practices that our grandparents could never have imagined are introduced to first-graders by mandated “diversity” curricula. How can we teach our children right from wrong, when the TV mocks us for explaining that burning down public buildings and rioting are not good ways to solve problems? Should parents yield control over raising our children to cultural Marxists?

One of the most powerful neologisms is “hate speech”. This category is used to terrorize people into self-censorship. Once an idea is branded “hate speech”, those who speak it can be demonized and even prosecuted under unconstitutional laws. But “hate speech” is merely speech that others hate. Our First Amendment protects all speech: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The only exceptions are inciting acts of violence or endangering the masses with one’s words.

What is at stake is only our free will, national independence, and right to personal uniqueness. We must not be coerced by “politically-correct” language bullies. We need to embrace the truth. While crying “diversity”, the globalists promote conformity. The trend to homogeneity of thought and language flouts everything that past generations of Americans fought to preserve. A free society is one in which vigorous debate flourishes, not the monoculture of ideas that the Left would compel under the insincere banner of “diversity”.

A splinter minority hopes to overrule the silent majority. And if we remain silent, they might. It is time to become vocal. Our Constitution empowers us with freedom of speech. We need to reject the lies and insist on the truth, in our private interactions and in all public discourse. We need to be loud. We need to overcome our reticence, and speak out. Truth is the only cure.

Joe Biden is a Rapist and I Want You to Vote for Him

Joe Biden is a Rapist and I Want You to Vote for Him

by John Cleer

The New York Times actually published this argument (wording it “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m voting for Joe Biden anyway … suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain”) in an Op-Ed ( 1 ) and by all appearances, they agree with it. Stranger yet, a good cross-section of their readers do, as evidenced in the Letters to the Editor ( 2 ) and by the lack of much push-back, if any, to the article.

But only two years ago, this same newspaper viciously attacked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, publishing numerous articles ( 3 ) around the argument that there is an ethical obligation to “believe women” which makes Kavanaugh guilty, because he was accused by a woman. From there it followed that Kavanaugh must not be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court.

Now hold on, you might be saying, op-ed writers are not affiliated with the newspaper’s editorial board. This is technically true, but the writer Linda Hirshman has been a steady presence on the liberal circuit for years now and this includes the New York Times. They announced her daughter’s wedding in the Style section in 2003 ( 4 ) and have published Linda’s op-eds periodically for more than 10 years ( 5 ); longtime columnist David Brooks name-dropped her at the top of his column nearly 15 years ago, starting a public back-and-forth that generated publicity for her, an unknown writer, in the lead-up to her first book release. ( 6 ) The Times have since plugged all three of her books ( 7 ), which make the bestseller list now — she’s part of the club, thanks in part to David Brooks, and has had a long relationship with the “paper of record” that continued with this op-ed.

Katha Pollitt wrote an article for The Nation just like the Times’, and they too published it: “I would vote for Joe Biden even if I believed Reade’s account… I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them.” ( 8 ) What if he boiled YOUR baby and ate it, Katha Pollitt? Would you vote for him then?

The Atlantic took a more honest step back before launching into the same: “Condemning Biden carries a clear cost for these groups. They believe that four more years of Trump would be immensely damaging for their policy agendas and for women in general,” leading in to another feminist writer explaining why she defends Biden against Reade and you should too. ( 9 ) “For women in general,” that is.

All three of these outlets pushed for Kavanaugh’s removal and yet today, all three are publishing reasons it’s different with Biden. Reade is lying, or they believe her but their political vision for the country (“beating Trump”) is more important. So Biden may be a rapist, and that’s ok now—sometimes that’s what women need, right New York Times?

This discrepancy is trending across the liberal media, who only two years ago would’ve called *you* a rapist if you wanted Kavanaugh’s accusations corroborated. Bloodthirsty, determined and certain of their moral high ground, the Left chanted “We Believe Her” (referring to his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who says he tried to rape her 37 years ago) in unison, incessantly, for months. The year before, similar decades-old accusations were lobbed against Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. If these people are truly concerned about the victims, then shouldn’t they apply this standard to both sides of the political aisle? Surely they’d agree that candidates for president should be held to it.

Don’t ask Joe Biden—he doesn’t always know he’s running for president. ( 10 ) But if he wins, “[his] first priority as president will be defeating Donald Trump.” ( 11 ) He’s forgotten what state he was in, on camera, in 3 different states in this campaign alone. Do reporters hold Biden accountable for these lapses, or do they surreptitiously ignore them? He’s forgotten what day of the week it is and even which half-century he’s in, telling parents to “make sure you have the record player on at night” for their kids. He’s forgotten what college he went to, claiming falsely he attended historically-black Delaware State when he attended the University of Delaware. He’s forgotten who was on the stage with him at a Democratic debate, saying in front of Kamala Harris that he was endorsed by the only African-American woman in the Senate. Astonishingly Biden’s even forgotten the Declaration of Independence, on stage in the midst of reciting it: “All men and women are created by the … you know … you know the thing.” ( 12 ) And every time he does it, he gets a pass.

In striking similarity, Ford doesn’t know what city she says she was almost raped in, what year it was, whose house it happened in or who was there with her. ( 13 ) Her only records are her therapist’s notes which were taken 30 years later and conflict with the year she gave the Washington Post as an estimation ( 14 ) (compared to Kavanaugh’s daily notes which are meticulous and taken in his own hand, in real time on the dates in question ( 15 )). None of the three witnesses Ford named can remember the party ( 16 )and one of them says “I don’t have any confidence in the story,” and can’t recall ever having met Kavanaugh. ( 17 )

Ford has also demonstrated a penchant for lying under oath, or at best remembering things in different ways than everyone else does. After she suggested that a polygraph test she’d taken proves she’s telling the truth, Ford’s ex-boyfriend wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee disputing a number of her claims on the stand: in the six years he says they dated, she did not seem afraid of flying or enclosed spaces and more pertinently, she had indeed coached her friend on passing a polygraph test for a job opportunity. ( 18 )

“Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her friend] McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology,” he wrote in response to Ford’s claim on the stand that she had “never” “taken any other polygraphs in [her] life” or “had discussions with anyone besides [her] attorneys on how to take a polygraph,” nor had she “ever given tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test.” This would mean she not only perjured herself but is a studied or even professional liar, at least in regards to manipulating polygraphs. ( 19 )

Mr. Biden’s accuser, Tara Reade, claimed her mother called the Larry King Show after Tara left Biden’s office to talk about the alleged rape: this claim has been corroborated by the tape being found. Reade also has eight contemporaneous corroborating witnesses who confirmed her account. ( 20 ) So under the “Believe Women” mantra, which does not even require evidence, Mr. Biden’s cancellation should be a shoe-in.

But a funny thing is happening this time: instead of finding more victims to parade, the media can now only find staffers who will defend Biden. There were over 40 witnesses ready to testify negatively about Kavanaugh to the FBI ( 21 ), but for some reason with Biden, they can only find staffers who will sing his praise. PBS found 74 of them ( 22 ), opening their article by asserting he was not on a particular list of “creepy” senators, then conceding he was “also a toucher, seemingly oblivious to whether physical contact made some women uncomfortable.” You see, *he* didn’t make them uncomfortable, it was physical contact in general that did this, and in this case it just happened to come from Joe Biden. As PBS tells it, Mr. Biden was just being himself, and these women were touchy about it.

With Biden under the gun instead of Kavanaugh, the press is suddenly interested in evidence and credibility, and whether an allegation has any. “Believe Women” has become “we never meant ‘believe *all* women.’”

“That’s a Right-Wing trap!,” says the New York Times, and a “canard.” “Believe All Women” is the negation of “Believe Women,” wrote the writer, decrying it as a “double standard purity test.” But instead of disproving the double standard, the writer just says conservatives are hypocrites too. ( 23 )

Let me point out that this is very much a double standard (and a “canard” for that matter, if it’s possible to use the word honestly). Kavanaugh was convicted in the public forum by paid lobbyists of all stripes ( 24 ) who insisted that he was guilty, because otherwise you’d be calling Ford a liar. It was impossible that Ford could be lying, only a rapist would say that! But there is no parallel concern for Tara Reade—Politico for example published a hit piece characterizing her as “manipulative, deceitful” and desperate for money. ( 25 )

California prosecutors have even launched an investigation into whether she lied on the stand. What do they accuse her of lying about? Having graduated from college. ( 26 ) In other words, the supposed lie has nothing to do with her experience with Biden, and they are accusing her misleadingly—and using the power of the court to silence her, in order to protect the alleged rapist Mr. Biden.

It’s acceptable to treat Tara Reade like this because she’s accusing a Democrat. Conservatives get the Kavanaugh Treatment, where wildly unsubstantiated and relatively mild allegations are treated as fact and guilt is assumed. Kavanaugh allegedly “groped” Ford and tried to remove her clothes (no specifics given) and put his hand on her mouth as if to quiet her. ( 27 ) Clarence Thomas before him allegedly made unwelcome comments.

Joe Biden by contrast is accused of reaching under Reade’s skirt and jamming his fingers inside her ( 28 ), against her will, and then telling her “You’re nothing to me” as he walked away ( 29 ). Somehow the Kavanaugh and Thomas allegations were treated much more seriously than this. In Tara Reade’s case it’s even acceptable to say, “Joe Biden raped her and it doesn’t matter, we need to vote for him.” Imagine a reporter saying this about Blase Ford, in Supreme Court season, without losing their job and getting blacklisted. What happened to “We believe her”? It was a lie, Ford was a liar and everyone knew it. They knew she was lying and they used her.

The reality of these frenzied accusations and the “feminist” journalists who push them in the magazines, as the Atlantic briefly acknowledged ( 30 ), is they are political tools. Whoever runs the media has no problem defending a rapist, attacking a rape victim, or slandering a good man with false accusations, and their whore employees will do anything for a dollar.


1. “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway. The importance of owning an ugly moral choice.” Linda Hirshman, New York Times.





6. Ibid. 7. Ibid.

8. “We Should Take Women’s Accusations Seriously. But Tara Reade’s Fall Short.” Katha Pollit, The Nation.

9. “Is It Fair to Compare Joe Biden to Brett Kavanaugh? A candid conversation with the president of the National Women’s Law Center” Emma Green, The Atlantic.

10. (Biden says he’s running for Senate) “The Biden Gaffe Machine: A Running List Of Joe Biden’s Best Slip-Ups.” Tristan Justice, The Federalist.

11. “Joe Biden Gaffe: My First Priority as President Would Be to Defeat Trump.” Joshua Caplan, Breitbart.



14. “Ford attorneys offer notes from therapy in exchange for FBI interview. Brett Samuels, The Hill.

15. “Kavanaugh lawyer calls for accuser’s legal team to submit polygraph and therapist notes to Senate.” Gabriella Munoz, Washington Times.

16. “4 new witnesses for Christine Blasey Ford don’t really corroborate her claim against Kavanaugh.” Becket Adams, Examiner.

17. “‘Just didn’t make any sense’: Friend of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford now challenges her story” Jerry Dunleavy, Examiner.

18. “Report: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Ex-Boyfriend Says She Coached A Friend Before Taking A Polygraph Test.” Mike Brest, Daily Caller.

19. Ibid.

20. “Tara Reade Gets Another Corroborating Witness, Total Reaches 8.” John Nolte, Breitbart.

21. “FBI has not contacted dozens of potential sources in Kavanaugh investigation.” Caldwell & Przybyla, NBC News.

22. “What 74 former Biden staffers think about Tara Reade’s allegations.” Daniel Bush, PBS. 23. “Believe All Women’ Is a Right-Wing Trap.” Susan Faludi, New York Times.

24. (Advocacy groups raised seven-figure war chests, warning that Judge Kavanaugh poses an existential threat to abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act and checks on presidential power.) “‘So, So Jaded’: The Campaign to Stop Brett Kavanaugh Struggles for Liftoff.” Fandos & Edmondson, New York Times. (

25. “‘Manipulative, deceitful, user’: Tara Reade left a trail of aggrieved acquaintances.” Natasha Korecki, Politico.

26. “Biden sex assault accuser Tara Reade allegedly lied about her education, prompting a review of her expert witness work.” Nicole Darrah, The Sun.


(28.) “Biden accuser Tara Reade claims he pinned her to a wall and said ‘I want to f*** you’ – as she demands he exits race.” Chris Spargo, The Sun.

29. “The #MeToo hypocrites who’ve gone silent for Joe Biden.” Maureen Callahan, New York Post.

30. Green, The Atlantic.

Secretary of State Pompeo Signals Historic Shift in U.S.-China Relations

An OP-ED from ABCU|8 – The American Broadcasting CommUnity

Secretary of State Pompeo Signals Historic Shift in U.S.-China Relations

by Anon

Fullsized image

It will be up to future historians to judge President Richard M. Nixon’s “opening” of China fifty years ago. America was optimistic over the potential that Maoist China might adopt aspects of capitalism. We believed that with more interaction, China would become more like our liberal democracy. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said today, that course seemed inevitable – at the time.

The Vietnam war was still ongoing, and we college students wanted the war to end. Our male peers, after drawing a low number in the draft lottery, were sent overseas, their lives forever changed (or extinguished). So we were eager for the change that Nixon’s new Asia policy seemed to signal.

This philosophy has guided American presidents for many terms. They naively treated the country run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) like a normal nation, trusting it to apply the rule of law internally, and uphold its agreements internationally. However, a realistic assessment by the Trump administration found otherwise. Only the blind or willfully ignorant couldn’t see that the CCP’s primary goal has always been to rip off other countries through every means possible, to gain advantage for China, with an ultimate goal of Chinese hegemony. [1]

President Donald Trump began the relationship with CCP Chairman Xi Jinpeng cordially. While they dined at Mar-a-Lago, we learned (with trepidation) that Trump sent a cruise missile to bomb an empty warehouse in Syria over chocolate cake. [2] It signalled that America’s new president meant business and had command of his military. Months later, Mr. and Mrs. Trump visited Beijing, receiving an honor never before afforded to any other nation’s leader: a visit inside the ancient Imperial City, once the home of Chinese emperors, where no commoner was allowed to tread. Trump continued praising Xi effusively – saving Xi’s “face” in front of his people, while leaving a generous opening for improved Chinese behavior. This seemed an auspicious start.

In late 2019, the Trump administration negotiated for a fair and reciprocal trade relationship with China, signing the historic Phase One Trade Agreement on January 15, 2020. [3] That very day, America got its first case of COVID-19 – an undesired Chinese import.

Yet many suspected trouble all along. In a February 2020 speech to the National Governors’ Association, Mr. Pompeo publicly outlined some concerns. [4] The CCP had targeted governors, grading each as “friendly,” “hardline,” or “ambiguous” on their willingness to cooperate with CCP goals. Under Xi, he said, “China is moving exactly in the opposite direction – more repression, more unfair competition, more predatory economic practices; indeed, a more aggressive military posture as well… The Chinese Government has been methodical… It’s assessed our vulnerabilities, and it’s decided to exploit our freedoms to gain advantage over us.”

Current news abounds with Chinese students and scientists, employees of the CCP People’s Liberation Army, being charged with espionage, intellectual property theft, and other crimes. [5] through [22] The charges are new, but such crimes continue a long-established Chinese pattern of exploiting American openness.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, at the Munich Security Conference, said, “The prevailing notion of the day was that, if we allowed the PRC [People’s Republic of China] into the WTO [World Trade Organization] and other multilateral institutions, China would continue on its path of economic reform and eventually become a market-oriented trading partner. More broadly, increased engagement with the liberal world order would also spur political opening and help transform the PRC into a responsible global stakeholder. The more skeptical voices argued that, if granted membership, China would use the benefits of free trade and an open international order to grow its economy and access the technology required to build a strong military and security state capable of expanding the reach of their authoritarian rule. These were both credible arguments, but we all know which one is winning right now. It’s not the former. In fact, under President Xi’s rule, the Chinese Communist Party is heading even faster and further in the wrong direction – more internal repression, more predatory economic practices, more heavy-handedness, and most concerning for me, a more aggressive military posture.” [23, 24]

On July 16th, Attorney General William Barr, speaking to business leaders said, “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States… If you’re an American business leader, appeasing the PRC may bring short term rewards, but in the end the PRC’s goal is to replace you.” [25] Yet many American companies kow-tow to CCP pressure.

It was the last straw when China abrogated all international norms by failing to notify other countries as soon as it learned of a “novel coronavirus” from Wuhan that has since swept the planet. The ensuing closures have wreaked unprecedented economic damage to America and our allies.

America’s new hard stance, bluntly confronting the CCP’s aggression and taking new measures to protect America from them, is a long-overdue reversal of past administrations’ failure to protect the American people from international predators.


1. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, Speech at Richard Nixon Presidential Library, July 23, 2020.

2. The Guardian, “Trump told Xi of Syria strikes over ‘beautiful piece of chocolate cake'”,

3. The White House, “President Donald J. Trump is Signing a Landmark Phase One Trade Agreement with China”,

4. State Department, “U.S. States and the China Competition”,

5. U.S. Department of Justice, “Researchers Charged with Visa Fraud After Lying About Their Work for China’s People’s Liberation Army”,

6. The National Pulse, “Harvard Center Hypes Chinese Communist Party Popularity While Receiving MILLIONS From Chinese Govt and CCP-Linked Companies”,

7. Breitbart News, “U.S. Prosecutors: Fugitive Chinese Researcher Hiding in San Francisco Consulate”,

8. Business Insider, “People are burning documents at the Chinese Consulate in Houston, as Beijing says the US abruptly gave it 72 hours to shut it down”,

9. Fox News, “Rubio: Chinese consulate in Houston was ‘massive spy center'”,

10. Wired, “Chinese Hackers Charged in Decade-Long Crime and Spying Spree”,

11. Center for Security Policy, “Harvard professor’s arrest shows Chinese spying via US universities”,

12. Fox News, “Arkansas professor allegedly hid China ties to secure NASA grant money”,

13. Campus Reform, “Ohio professor the latest to be arrested over China ties”,

14. Newsweek, “UCLA Professor Stole Missile Secrets for China, Faces 219 Years in Prison”,

15. Tennessee Star, “UT Knoxville Professor Arrested, Charged for Double-Dealing with Chinese Government and NASA”,

16. USA Today, “Chinese professors among 6 charged with economic espionage”,

17. “Chinese professor in US convicted of stealing tech secrets, economic espionage”,

18. CNN, “US intelligence warns China is using student spies to steal secrets”,

19. Washington Times, “Spy school: Chinese military officer busted for posing as Boston University student”,

20. Washington Times, “China using students as spies”,

21. Voice of America, “Chinese College Students Being Forced to Spy on US”,

22. NBC News, “Education or espionage? A Chinese student takes his homework home to China”,

23. Remarks by Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper,

24. NY Post, “China’s new ‘social credit system’ is a dystopian nightmare”,

25. Yahoo Finance, “‘China’s goal is to replace you’: Barr warns leaders of America’s biggest businesses”,

Are face masks effective in combating COVID-19?

Are face masks effective in combating COVID-19?

by G

Fullsized image

As the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths continues to change, governments all around the world create their own policies regarding the prevention of the novel coronavirus, such as social distancing and the controversial mask wearing. In some cases, you [1] or your business [2] can be fined for not obeying the law or even arrested [2], but what do government guides and the mainstream media have to say about this?

The guidance published by the U.K. government claims that only ‘symptomatic individuals’ should weak masks in order to reduce the risk of transmitting the virus and that ‘the best way to reduce any risk of infection is good hygiene and avoiding direct and close contact with any potentially infected person’ [3]. Additionally, the official U.K. ‘working safely during coronavirus’ guidance states that ‘the evidence suggests that wearing a face covering does not protect you, but it may protect others if you are infected but have not developed symptoms’ and that ‘it is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small, therefore face coverings are not a replacement for the other ways of managing risk, including minimising time spent in contact, using fixed teams and partnering for close-up work, and increasing hand and surface washing’ [4].

Moreover, the situation is not any different in the U.S. either. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) says that it ‘does not recommend that the general public wear N95 respirators to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including coronavirus (COVID-19)’ [6] and therefore ‘the best way to prevent illness is to avoid being exposed to this virus’. This, however, is supported by numerous sources, such as the California Department of Industrial Relations (Division of Occupational Safety & Health Publications Unit): ”Cloth face coverings do not protect against COVID -19” [8], the California Department of Health: “There is limited evidence to suggest that use of cloth face coverings by the public during a pandemic could help reduce disease transmission.” [9], the Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock: ”There is no scientific evidence that masks are effective. If you are not sick, you should not wear a face mask.” [10], US Surgeon General Jerome Adams: ”Masks are not effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus.” [11] and even Dr. Anthony Fauci: “People should not be walking around wearing masks. Masks do not provide the protection people think they do.” [12]

Other sources that backed up the ineffectiveness of masks are the World Health Organization: ‘face masks do not stop healthy people from catching coronavirus and should only be worn by healthcare workers and patients’ [5] and the New England Journal of Medicine: “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.” [7].

On the other hand, covering your face comes with certain drawbacks, including reducing the ‘intake of oxygen, leading to carbon dioxide toxicity’ [13], an increased risk ‘if users reduce their use of strong defenses’ [9], taking away information ‘that makes it especially difficult for children to recognize others and read emotional signals’ [14], having an opposite effect ‘in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly’ [15] and oxygen deficiency caused by a rise in carbon dioxide [16].

Taking everything into account, scientific evidence suggests that masks are not very effective in combating COVID-19, so imposing strict rules is an exaggerated move from governments and punishments for not complying could be considered tyrannical.


















Additional sources:







Why COVID-19 Statistics Aren’t Credible

July 16, 2020

Why COVID-19 Statistics Aren’t Credible

Fullsized image

by Anon

The entire lockdown/mask narrative hinges on a daily rising case count—a hammer to bludgeon the entire population. If we understand how this statistic is produced, we can decide for ourselves if the numbers are believable. I’ll call the novel Chinese coronavirus discovered in 2019 “COVID-19”. [9]

Garbage in—Garbage Out

The CDC’s April 5, 2020 Interim Case Definition combines confirmed and probable cases. [3] [4] A case is “probable” if it meets a range of subjective criteria without confirmatory lab testing. E.g.:

—You had a cough and had contact with someone else who tested positive (including on an antibody test).

—You had a headache and felt feverish without taking your temperature, in a community with “sustained ongoing community transmission.”

—You might be counted twice if you later got a positive test result.

—You got a positive antibody test in a community deemed to be infected (more on test accuracy coming up).

—A doctor wrote COVID-19 on your death certificate but you were not tested.

This is poor science. The CDC should break out two categories—confirmed and probable—and state the criteria for each. If someone is counted as probable and later receives a positive test, they should not be counted twice. Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia, and Vermont blend their data the same way. Virginia and Maine were too, but began separating their data. Combining PCR and antibody tests into a single heap vastly inflates the number of cases.[2] The old computing axiom—garbage in, garbage out—applies here. Statistics based on bad data are inherently faulty.

[Image: Discrepancies_In_Data_Reporting]

False positives

Pathologists haven’t identified any antibodies specific to the hypothesized pathogen, SARS-CoV-2. Without monoclonal antibodies, no one really knows what caused the illnesses attributed to it, or whether a pathogen was even present. No one has proven there is an infectious agent “SARS-CoV-2” that causes the same discrete disease in all the victims. Nor has a virus been isolated, reproduced and then shown to cause this discrete illness. [1]

Thus, the tests themselves are suspect: what exactly are they testing? The PCR tests do amplify a specific RNA fragment, but no one has shown whether that RNA fragment causes illness or is present in healthy people.

Anecdotes of test kit anomalies and false positives abound. A testing lab employee, baffled by an uptick in positives, bought 200 test kits. He made the kits appear tested without actually testing anyone, and submitted them to a competing lab. Over 50% of these unused kits turned up positive. [6] President John Magufuli of Tanzania, desiring to sanity-check the accuracy of tests, had a pawpaw fruit, a goat, and a quail tested; all tested positive. [7]

Financial motivations

Doctors and hospitals stand to gain by diagnosing inpatients with COVID-19. Medicare pays for inpatient hospital care using a diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. Hospitals classify patients based on the main diagnosis and treatment given. Medicare reimburses a flat amount per DRG code. For comparable respiratory conditions, Kaiser estimated that Medicare payments average $13,297 for a less severe hospitalization, versus $40,218 for a hospitalization involving ventilator treatment for 96+ hours. Moreover, the March 27, 2020 CARES stimulus package adds 20% to the Medicare reimbursement for COVID-19. [8]

Political motivations

Many incumbent governors continue to resist Donald Trump’s presidency. Anything supporting fraud-laden vote-by-mail is pushed. Anything to prolong draconian social control is pushed. Is there a possible third motive? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s February 8, 2020 speech informed us that China’s wooing of American elected officials has not gone unnoticed. Is it possible that some governors are beholden to the Chinese Communist Party, perhaps subject to bribe or blackmail? [5]

At first people wondered if China tried to slam us with a ferocious bioweapon. The virus alone turned out to be a dud. The true weapon was not merely a virus, but a binary weapon that became far more lethal when employed to justify ruthless, unconstitutional social controls. Draconian social measures issued by CDC and elaborated by certain governors continue. Americans are still facing social distancing, mandatory masks, and brutal closure guidelines that have caused many business failures. Governors pushing COVID patients into nursing homes against CDC guidelines, while refraining from using hospital ships and field hospitals that were provided at great expense, resulted in unconscionable—and avoidable—death rates among the elderly. Contrast state measures prohibiting church attendance and singing, mandating mask wearing in public with drastic fines, and requiring school closures, with these same governors taking no action to prevent large uncontrolled public gatherings when the crowds’ purpose was to protest, riot, and demonstrate.

Light at the end of the tunnel

President Trump has just ordered hospitals to bypass the CDC and report COVID-19 data directly to the White House. This courageous action, bypassing compromised CDC bureaucrats, should facilitate reopening America and rebuilding our economy to surpass prior levels. [10]


[1] Global Research, “No One Has Died from the Coronavirus: Important revelations from Dr Stoian Alexov, President of the Bulgarian Pathology Association,”

[2] No More Fake News Blog, “Huge COVID case-counting deception at the CDC,”

[3] Center for Disease Control, “2020 Interim Case Definition,”

[4] Center for Disease Control, “Cases in the U.S.,”

[5] U.S. State Department, “U.S. States and the China Competition,”


[7] N.Y. Post, “Faulty coronavirus kits suspected as goat and fruit test positive in Tanzania,”

[8] Politifact, “Fact-check: Do hospitals get paid more to list patients as having coronavirus?”

[9] “SARS-CoV-2 And COVID-19: What’s The Difference?,”–25264

[10] CBS News, “Trump administration orders hospitals to bypass CDC in reporting COVID data,”

Editorial – Why I Fight.


by Anon

I fight because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are worth fighting for. The founders’ ideals were right in 1776 and they are still right today.

I fight because our world has been changed for the worse over my lifetime. The dark agenda behind these changes is plainly seen, in comparing decades-old memories against the present. Experience brings perspective.

I fight for nieces and nephews, and their offspring, who would probably hate all that I stand for if they knew what I believe and do. (They don’t know I’m fighting to give them a better world, to return to them a goodly heritage and an opportunity for something better.)

I fight because I sincerely believe “the best is yet to come,” and that by reaching out our hand toward worthy goals, we can bring them closer, for all of us.

I fight because timelines are in play, and our individual thoughts can change the outcome.

I fight now, with all of my breath and strength, because when of age for military service, I had little interest in history or God or country. I did not serve my country then; my generation largely succumbed to set of false, externally-imposed ideas.

I fight because hating your own country is a losing proposition. If you don’t fight to improve the homeland that nurtured you, you’re no better than an animal.

I fight as one who from early childhood onward rejected others’ opinions and conclusions, examined things objectively, researched and thought for myself, and then acted upon my beliefs, regardless of the personal cost. I rejected the easy path and the easy answers. I always shunned the conventional because it only leads to mediocrity.

I fight because I believe important accomplishments require hard work and sacrifice, that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed, and that success is largely dependent on determination and hard work.

I fight because I know choices matter: that when one sees clearly, and makes up one’s mind firmly to seek a certain goal, and pursues it relentlessly, one can exceed all expectations, triumph over adversity, and achieve great victories.

I fight because honoring God requires loving all of his creation and striving to bring all of it into his light.

I fight because virtue, and honor, and righteousness are not mere empty words; they are real, and true, and worth fighting for.

Because I fight, I took the oath to uphold the Constitution and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I fight because experience shows that my efforts can strongly affect whatever cause they are applied to. So to not do my utmost, while realizing that my every push could impact the outcome, would be a failure of the worst kind.

I fight for personal excellence, and competence, and mastery, of any subject I decide to pursue.

I fight because both success and adversity have taught that you must stand up for what you believe, and strive for your goals.

I fight because you don’t want to look back and say, if only I had tried a little harder… how are you going to explain that at the Judgment?

I fight, and write, because the lies are pervasive, and truth is the only antidote to lies.

I fight because I love you.

Will you join us? Will you help us fight for truth? Will you write, show, and tell?