Month: June 2021

The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent articlepublished in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.

by Arjun Walia

©Andrey Yanevich/123RF.COM

YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations.

Not long ago I wrote an article about Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine who has been having trouble with twitter.

I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID.

His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.

Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,

“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”

This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so.

Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility. 

It makes no sense.

This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…”

I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK.

“Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.” – Clarke

This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency — a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)

An important point to get across is also the fact that these independent “fact checkers” are working with Facebook, who in turn is working with the government.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic.

These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways… They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication.

That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?

Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science.

Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.

How Fact Checking Works

The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1

When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.

But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation.

This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.

Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network — a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida.

Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook.

Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.

For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback.

Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict.

Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3

Also read: George Soros And Bill Gates Exposed As The Force Behind Facebook’s New ‘Fake News’ Detector

Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.

A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.”

They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”

The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict.

In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.

“Follow The Science”

The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation.

This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.

This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan:

“Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.

He says:

“Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”

The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4

He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring … they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.”

This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.

The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.”

In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5

But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics.

He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”

Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.”

In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation.

Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.

Scientific “Truth”

Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.”

Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.”

He explains:

“The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”

Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation).

Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be … I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”

Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives.

Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website:

“The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7

Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach.

Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”

This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.”

Kulldorff says:

“To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favours vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says.

“If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”

There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling.

He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”

https://humansarefree.com/2021/06/book-burning-facebook.html

An Ohio college student died about two weeks after receiving her second dose of the Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine.

by Jamie White

19-year-old Northwestern University freshman Simone Scott passed away from pneumonia complications Friday following a heart transplant she received as a result of myocarditis-induced heart failure last month.

Scott’s parents, left without an official explanation from doctors how this happened, believe the Moderna vaccine played a role in their daughter’s death, according to investigative reporter Alex Berenson.

“My fear is that we’ll never know what happened to Simone,” her father, Kevin Scott, reportedly said Sunday night. “[The vaccine] is a coincidence that is too big to ignore.”https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1404410621941239808&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fhumansarefree.com%2F2021%2F06%2Fcollege-student-dies-after-second-moderna-shot.html&theme=light&widgetsVersion=e1ffbdb%3A1614796141937&width=550px

“I do suspect it was the vaccine,” said Scott’s mother, Valerie Kraimer. “If it wasn’t direct, it played a role.”

Scott “took it upon herself to get vaccinated” as soon as the shots became available in April, her father said, and suffered adverse side effects soon after taking the first dose of Moderna’s vaccine.

After taking the second dose a month later, Scott went into heart failure.

“They said her heart was not functioning and they needed to insert a balloon pump to get it working,” Kraimer said. “They did at that point suspect that it was myocarditis. They were thinking it was a virus that had attacked her heart.”

A week later, doctors told Scott’s parents she needed a heart transplant, which was initially successful, but soon complications from the transplant led to a fatal lung infection.

Scott’s parents wish medical experts would have raised more awareness about the possible vaccine side effects, especially in young people.

“I lost my only daughter,” Kraimer said. “I never thought I’d have to give up my daughter for the greater good of society.”

Notably, around the time Scott received her first dose of the COVID shot, Israel researchers reported a possible link between myocarditis and the COVID vaccine in young individuals.

A month later, the CDC acknowledged a possible link between heart inflammation and the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines, which they claim to now be investigating.

Additional studies also found that heart inflammation was a common adverse reaction of the COVID-19 jab as a result of COVID spike proteins manufactured by the body via the mRNA vaccine.

CDC: 5,888 DEAD 329,021 Injured From COVID-19 Shots – More Than Previous 29 Years Of VAERS Vaccine Deaths

European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 Shots: 13,867 DEAD And 1,354,336 Injuries

https://humansarefree.com/2021/06/college-student-dies-after-second-moderna-shot.html

We can see it coming in our culture. Soon enough, polygamy will be accepted and celebrated in our culture. We must have good biblical arguments to defeat the wide acceptance of this practice. God did seem to allow it in the Old Testament, but did He ever command or mandate it? No. He also allowed slavery, but He never commanded nor mandated it.

I will give my belief on this topic upfront. Polygamy is NOT God’s will. God made ONE wife for Adam, not two or more. A man shall cleave to his WIFE, not wives. Leaders in the churches are to be the husband of ONE wife. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife [one wife], and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2).

“‘Well, how did polygamy get started?’ It got started in the reprobate line of Cain the murderer. Look at Genesis 4 if you’re there, in verse 23. One of the sons of Cain, the Cainite family, dwelled in the land of Nod in the east of Eden. Cain produced some family, and one of them was Lamech. Lamech was unbelievable. He was the first artist. Verse 23, ‘Lamech said unto his wives, ‘Adah and Zillah…that’s from A to Z. That’s his two wives, Adah and Zillah. He said unto his two wives, Adah and Zillah,’ and so forth. This is the first occasion of polygamy in the Bible, and it is in, notice that is in the line of Cain, the sinful line. Monogamous marriage was always God’s will.” (John MacArthur)

Michael Pearl, one of my other favorite theologians, made a video called “Does God Support Polygamy?” He answered, “No” too.

What about the Levirate marriage issue in the OT where a brother-in-law is supposed to marry his brother’s wife if the brother dies? In 1 Timothy 5 where the Apostle Paul speaks about widows, nowhere does he command brothers-in-law to marry their widowed sisters-in-law. If a young woman’s husband dies, she is to marry, bear children, and guide the home. Paul would have commanded the brothers-in-law to take on this responsibility if the Levirate marriage was still for the Church age. Older widows are to be cared for by family, relatives, and the churches. The Levirate marriage’s purpose was so “that his name [the dead brother’s name] be not put out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:6). We are not a part of Israel, and we are not under the Law.

One man gave this illustration that he believes proves that God supports polygamy in the New Testament: “Jesus’ parable about the ten virgins. He didn’t say there were two virgins, one wise and one foolish. He said ten, and that five of them (who were wise) went into the marriage with the bridegroom.” What a way to twist Scripture! The virgins represent ONE Church and the Church will be wed to the Bridegroom who is Christ.

The men in the OT who had multiple wives always suffered grief because of it. God even commanded King Solomon: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:17). His wives ended up turning his heart away from the Lord.

My husband wrote the following on this topic: “The fact that the Church has never accepted polygamy and condemned it, that an elder is to be the husband of one wife, that the two are to become one flesh, and that there is zero need for multiple wives, all should lead us to conclude that it is not for the Church age.

“Imagine the harm that will come when polygamy is once again in vogue. I believe it is the next pillar to fall in the destruction of the nuclear family. Once the floodgates are opened, the better looking men and the wealthy men will pull even more women out of the marriage marketplace leaving more men hopeless to find a good wife. Selfishness will rule and marriages and families destroyed by something God granted as an exception, but condemned the kings of Israel for doing.

“This article answers this pretty well. I see no biblical or church precedence for opening up polygamy, yet great dangers as it is coming to further divide the church, society, and the nuclear family. Imagine a successful, great looking and wonderful Christian man in his late forties who is already married, now takes on two more younger wives in their twenties and thirties and robs a couple of young men their lifetime help meets. The thought to me is awful.”

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

Is God Okay With Polygamy?

Why Countries Collapse

Paul Craig Roberts

Dmitry Orlov and Vladimir Putin believe the US is failing, because the US government, in Putin’s words, is “making sure-footed strides directly along the path of the Soviet Union.”

These strides are, in Orlov’s words: “exorbitant debt, problems in the energy sector and unreformable political systems mired in corruption, their elites delusional in their feelings of omnipotence. And now comes a truly eerie analogy: the powder keg that detonated under the USSR was ethnic nationalism and separatism; and the powder keg that is currently detonating under the US is “woke” (anti-)racism: another brand of ethnic fascism but with American characteristics.” https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/06/dmitry-orlov/putin-fully-agrees-with-me/ 

I don’t deny that these problems afflicted the Soviet Union and afflict the US today.  Certainly, such problems, if not successfully dealt with, could bring about failure.  However, in my view the Soviet Union collapsed because the belief system collapsed.  The United or Disunited States is collapsing for the same reason, as is all of the Western World.  Whether Russia joins this collapse as well remains to be seen.

The Soviet Union collapsed because communism did not produce the plenty that it promised, or the freedom, and frustrated communist reformers were sick of the system.  Dissidents were punished, at times severely, and propaganda was used to control the narrative as it is used today in the US.  The remaining threads of belief were cut when hardline elements in the Communist Party placed President Gorbachev under house arrest.

In the Western world the destruction of belief has been underway for many decades.  The French novelist Jean Raspail captured the collapse of Western belief and its consequences in his novel, The Camp of the Saints, 48 years ago in 1973.  The collapse is clearly visible today. The French, the Germans, the British, the Scandinavians cannot resist the dark-skinned immigrant-invaders that are are finally conquering Western Christianity with Islam.

German belief in themselves and their country was destroyed by American control of their educational system since 1945. Germans are indoctrinated with the belief that their country is shameful, responsible for heinous acts supported by the German people. Any manifestation of German pride or any defense of German ethnicity against immigrant-invaders is treated as a manifestation of Nazism.  https://www.unz.com/ghood/the-washington-post-treat-america-like-a-conquered-nation/ 

In Britain assorted intellectuals and university professors have damned the British for their colonialism.  Generation by generation the attack has eroded away British belief in their country.  Today “the privileged few,” the students at Magdalen College, Oxford University, are “uncomfortable” with a portrait of Queen Elizabeth in their common room and have removed the image of the Queen of England from their presence.  Quite clearly, the disassociation of the privileged few from their country is extreme.  How must the down and out feel?

In France the only politician who represents French ethnicity is Marine Le Pen, but the French ethnics will not elect the only politician who believes in a French nationalist state based on French ethnicity.  When the Establishment is not trying to arrest her, they are calling her a nazi. So, if you are French and you stand for French people, you are a nazi.  If patriotism still exists, it has been removed from association with French ethnicity.

In the now throughly Disunited States, split not north and south but red and blue, in the blue states white Americans are regarded as systemic racist oppressors of blacks and perpetrators of genocide of the native tribes.  There is much talk of paying restitution, but the emphasis now is on eliminating “whiteness.”  For the extremists, this means killing off the whites.  You can see the flavor here:  https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/06/11/expressions-of-anti-white-hatred-in-high-places-aruna-khilanani-at-yale/  For others it means eliminating Western culture.

Black studies programs in American universities and all blue state public school systems and some red state ones, although the red states are moving against it, teach that white people are racist by nature and naturally oppress “people of color.”  The effect of this teaching is to create hatred of whites on the part of “people of color” while destroying the confidence of white Americans to defend themselves from accusations, punishments, and violence.  The manifestations of the attacks on white Americans are everywhere.  Indeed, we drown in them.  Yet there is no public or political discussion of the official demonization of white Americans, which is being implemented as the official policy of the Democrat Party.  

As in Raspail’s novel the attack on French nationalists was led by the French themselves, so in the Disunited States the fierce demonizing attacks on white Americans are led by white American liberals.  Self-repudiation by white persons is the rule in the Western world.

In New Zealand there was or is about to be a vote to dispossess themselves and hand over part of the country that New Zealanders built to the descendants of the original native inhabitants.  There is similar intent in Australia and Canada.  The Germans for years have been paying billions of dollars to the “descendants of the Holocaust.”  

Even the US military is being programmed to weed out alleged racist attitudes toward people of color.  If white US soldiers are guilty of oppressing blacks, they are also guilty of oppressing Arabs and Asians.  How then can US troops fight in the Middle East or against China? If blacks have been oppressed, the US has oppressed people of color in the Arab countries it has bombed and invaded for 20 years.  Is the US military being conditioned so that it can only fight white people? Are US sanctions against China, North Korea, and Iran racist?

Will self-denunciation spread to Russia and China?  Both are vulnerable.  Both stupidly welcomed Western influence and have a professorial class of academics imbued with Western thinking.  Think about the oppression under Stalin, the Kulaks and so forth, the gulag, the executions of “enemies of the people.”  Think about Mao and all those he eliminated.  And Pol Pot. 

Is the answer that class oppressions are OK, but not racial oppressions?  

In North America no one alive today has been a slave or owned a slave.  In North America slavery ended 156 years ago. If American white persons have to pay a price for what happened long before their time, how far back and how widely applied shall the punishments be?  What does Turkey owe descendants of Byzantium?  What do descendants of Barbary Pirates owe descendants of Americans they enslaved? What do descendants of Muslims who raided Italian coastal towns for slaves have to pay descendants of the slaves?  What restitution must Israel make for stealing Palestine from the Palestinians?  What do descendants of Normans have to pay descendants of Anglo-Saxons for conquering England?

What do the black inhabitants of Benin, formerly Dahomey, owe the descendants of black slaves Dahomey sold into slavery?  

Black Africans were were the mainstay of the slave trade:  

“The Atlantic slave trade peaked in the late 18th century when the largest number of slaves were captured on raiding expeditions into the interior of West Africa. These expeditions were typically carried out by African states, such as the Bono State, Oyo empire (Yoruba), Kong Empire, Kingdom of Benin, Imamate of Futa Jallon, Imamate of Futa Toro, Kingdom of Koya, Kingdom of Khasso, Kingdom of Kaabu, Fante Confederacy, Ashanti Confederacy, Aro Confederacy and the kingdom of Dahomey.[43][44] Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa, due to fear of disease and moreover fierce African resistance. The slaves were brought to coastal outposts where they were traded for goods.”

“African states played a key role in the slave trade, and slavery was a common practice among Sub Saharan Africans before the involvement of the Arabs, Berbers and Europeans. There were three types: those who were slaves through conquest, those who were slaves due to unpaid debts, or those whose parents gave them as slaves to tribal chiefs. Chieftains would barter their slaves to Arab, Berber, Ottoman or European buyers for rum, spices, cloth or other goods.[48] Selling captives or prisoners was commonly practiced among Africans, Turks, Berbers and Arabs during that era.”

“The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise may have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa’s principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples.[51][52][53] Like the Bambara Empire to the east, the Khasso kingdoms depended heavily on the slave trade for their economy. A family’s status was indicated by the number of slaves it owned, leading to wars for the sole purpose of taking more captives. This trade led the Khasso into increasing contact with the European settlements of Africa’s west coast, particularly the French.[54] Benin grew increasingly rich during the 16th and 17th centuries on the slave trade with Europe; slaves from enemy states of the interior were sold, and carried to the Americas in Dutch and Portuguese ships. The Bight of Benin’s shore soon came to be known as the ‘Slave Coast.’”   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery. 

According to Wikipedia’s entry, “History of Slavery,” today there is still some slavery in modern Nigeria, Benin, Sudan and parts of Ghana.  Yet “black studies” and Critical Race Theory focus on 19th century slavery in the United States.

In other words, the only interest in slavery is in using it as a weapon against American white persons.

Slavery among black Africans existed long before the transatlantic slave trade. The black slaves sold to Europeans were first enslaved by other blacks. Yet black slavery is blamed on white people. This lie is used to foment hatred of whites by blacks and self-hatred by whites indoctrinated in their guilt. Clearly, this lie has destroyed any prospect of a multicultural America, which is the only America the white liberals believe in.

Why Countries Collapse

Regarding the recent COVID-Lethal-Injections, the Zionist-controlled media are suppressing the mortality headcount (those who died) and morbidity headcount (those who suffered adverse reactions).

 In Jun 2021, the mortality headcount is in fact over 900,000 worldwide. The actual morbidity headcount is currently several million worldwide. The Zionists are reporting only one percent of those they have already genocided or made sick. The reason the Zionists “skipped” the animal studies when “testing” the Zionist Covid-Lethal-Injection (ZCLI) is that ALL the animals died.

“On the Richie Allen Show in Manchester-England, Dr Rima Laibow MD stated: “The Worst-Case Scenario Is That Everyone Who Gets The COVID-Lethal-Injection Is Dead In 6 Months. The Best-Case Scenario Is That Everyone Who Gets The COVID-Lethal-Injection Is Dead In 4 Years”

Disclaimer- O’Carroll labels the vaccines “Zionist.”  He could easily say “Masonic,” “Cabalist” “Communist,” “Satanist” or “Globalist.” 

by Patrick O’Carroll

(henrymakow.com)

HOW SERIOUS IS THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE OPINIONS OF UN-OWNED MEDICAL DOCTORS?

1. Dr Sherri Tenpenny MD described all the recent Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injections as “Perfectly Designed Killing Machines”;
2. Dr Geert Vanden Bossche MD (who worked for the Gates Foundation that is run by Bill “McKill” Gates and his “husband” Mel) said: “Vaccine Disaster Ahead, This Must Stop Immediately”. His slight linguistic slip in that was that the Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection is not a “vaccine” but properly a lethal gene “therapy”;
3. Dr Luc Montagnier MD won the Ig-Nobel medicine prize, and explicitly agrees with the latter statement by Dr Geert Vanden Bossche MD. Montagnier says that the Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection is creating new COVID variants and, for the first time, turning what was previously the COVID scam-demic into a real pandemic. Dr Luc Montagnier MD says: “All people who received the COVID jab will die within two years. There is no chance of survival for people who have received any form of the COVID jab”. He backed up the claims of other eminent virologists and, after studying the ingredients of the vaccine, stated: “There is no hope and no possible treatment for those who have already been COVID-jabbed. We must be prepared to cremate their bodies. All of them will die from ANTIBODY-DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT. That is all that can be said”;
4. Dr Andrew Kaufman MD said: “There is really no evidence that any virus that is alleged to cause a disease has ever been isolated for what is being called COVID or proven to cause what is being called COVID”;
5. Dr Richard Fleming MD issued a dire warning about the dangers of the Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection (ZCLI), saying it can cause mad-cow disease, because the man-made spike-proteins (foreign proteins) used in the COVID-Lethal-Injections are designed to cause serious inflammation. This is why they have caused deadly blood-clots in so many victims, that have already led to millions of “vaxidents” worldwide, in which recipients of the COVID-Lethal-Injection could no longer properly operate the same machinery they were able to operate only weeks before. The Modus Operandi, or how the Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection kills: The spike-proteins destroy the recipient’s immune system like a computer virus destroying a PC. The spike-proteins also hack DNA to change the victim to “post-human” as intended by the Zionist hackers;
6. Dr Rima Laibow MD said that, since 1974, the UN’s Worst Health Organization (WHO) has been working on vaccines to induce sterility and has tested some of their products in the “third world” as a trial run. And indeed, Bill “McKill” Gates and his “husband” Mel already sterilized hundreds of thousands of “third world” women but the Zionist-controlled mainstream-media did not consider that “newsworthy” so they gave it ZERO airplay. In Mar 2021, on the Richie Allen Show in Manchester-England, Dr Rima Laibow MD stated: “The Worst-Case Scenario Is That Everyone Who Gets The COVID-Lethal-Injection Is Dead In 6 Months. The Best-Case Scenario Is That Everyone Who Gets The COVID-Lethal-Injection Is Dead In 4 Years”;
7. The website of the Zionist British regime predicts that 80 percent of people who will die in the next “wave” of the COVID HOAX will have received two doses of what it calls the “COVID jab” (which is properly called the Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection);
8. Dr Mike Yeadon, a top former Pfizer director, said that the Zionist Covid-Lethal-Injection (ZCLI) is most likely for genocide, urging: “Please warn everyone not to go near top-up [booster] jabs”. The Zionist COVID-Lethal-Injection (ZCLI) also contains DARPA’s hydrogel that grows inside the victim’s body so as to change the victim to “post-human” and to accelerate the pace at which the ZCLI will genocide him;
9. Most reliable, proper or un-owned medical doctors currently warn: “Everyone Who Receives The COVID Jab Will Be Dead In Five Years”.

https://www.henrymakow.com

How come so many women want to turn all of my posts on marriage into abuse? What is their intention and purpose for doing this? Yes, there are women being abused, but for the majority of women who are not, they need good, solid teaching on becoming godly wives.

I asked these questions to the people on my Instagram. Here are some of the GREAT responses:

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 3:6,7

Why Do Women Cry Ab*se When I Teach on Marriage?

by Brian Shilhavy

Recorded deaths following the experimental COVID-19 injectionssoared this week as the CDC added more data yesterday into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a U.S. Government funded database that tracks injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

While the information contained in VAERS is publicly available information, the corporate media continues to censor it, and anyone who dares to publish publicly available information from the U.S. Government is labeled as “fake news” by the “fact checkers.”

The data released yesterday, June 11, 2021, lists 5,888 deaths among 329,021 cases of injuries following COVID-19 shots. There are also another 5,884 life-threatening cases, 43,892 ER visits, 4,583 permanent disabilities, and 19,597 hospitalizations.

Source.

To put this into perspective, these totals represent a 6-month period since December, 2020, when the FDA gave emergency use authorization to these shots, and the death total now exceeds deaths recorded in VAERS following vaccinations for the past 29 years, since the beginning of 1992.

Source.

This is genocide. And as many dissenting medical doctors and scientists have stated, these are bioweapon shots designed by eugenicists to reduce the world’s population.

European Database Of Adverse Drug Reactions For COVID-19 Shots: 13,867 DEAD And 1,354,336 Injuries

CDC And FDA Finally Admit Heart Inflammation Problems Occurring From COVID Shots

The CDC and FDA met this past week on June 10, 2021, and finally admitted that there were hundreds of reported cases of Myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart) following mRNA shots.

Prior to this meeting, the only thing they were willing to admit was that there were “rare” cases of blood clots in the brain, while choosing to ignore a myriad of other reported conditions, including many other types of blood clots.

The June 10th report stated that there were 216 reports of heart inflammation after the first doses of the Pfizer and Moderna shots, and 573 reports after the second shots.

The median age after the first shot was 30-years-old, while the median age after the second shot was only 24-years-old. It is affecting more than twice as many males as females.

Given the fact that these reported cases represent only a tiny minority of actual cases, due to the passive nature of reporting to VAERS, it is obvious that we have a national crisis on our hands caused by the pharmaceutical companies and their experimental shots.

The government is not your friend, and it doesn’t matter if you live in a Red or Blue State, as they are all pro-vaccine.

While some Red State governors have taken action to prevent discrimination via Vaccine Passports, not a single governor in the U.S. has come forward to put a stop to the massive campaigns to inject as many people as possible with these bioweapons, which are now focused on children, even though they have the power to do so through their executive powers.

Not one. They are ALL complicit with murder.

https://humansarefree.com/2021/06/cdc-5888-dead-329021-injured-from-covid-19-shots-more-than-previous-29-years-of-vaers-vaccine-deaths.html

“To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Titus 2:5) There’s a lot of argument as to what “keepers at home” is in this day and age. Here’s how the men of old interpreted “keepers at home” to mean:

“Home duties, cares, pleasures, sacrifices of self—these God-appointed duties ought to fill the mind and the heart of the young wife. There should be no desire, no attempt, to go round to the other houses, and so contracting idle, gossiping habits.” (Ellicot’s Commentary)

“Keepers at home: minding their own family affairs, not gadding abroad; and inspecting into, and busying themselves about other people’s matters.” (Gill’s Commentary)

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” (1 Timothy 5:14) Here’s how they interpreted what “guide the house” meant:

“Bear children, guide the house – These words signify to ‘exercise and occupy themselves in the duties of a wife.’ It is better to be employed in the duties growing out of the cares of a family, than to lead a life of celibacy.” (Barnes’ Notes)

“Bear children, and not only bring forth children, but take care of their education; guide the house, and take care of the government of families within doors (which is the woman’s proper province).” (Matthew Poole’s Commentary)

“Bear children; and bring them forth, and feed, and nourish them, and bring them up in a religious way: guide the house; manage domestic affairs, direct, order, or do what is proper to be done for the good of the family; which is much more commendable than to throw themselves upon the church, and live an idle and wanton life, and after that marry.” (Gill’s Exposition)

They all knew without a doubt that a woman’s role is to marry, bear children, and be keepers at home. God created women for this role from the beginning of time, and it is good. Our nation was a much better place when women fulfilled this role at home with their children.

He maketh the barren woman to keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalm 113:9

Home Duties Ought To Fill the Minds and Hearts of Wives

I recently received a letter in the mail from a woman in Florida describing the illnesses from which she has suffered for the past dozen years: Hashimoto’s disease, liver dysfunction, sinus infection, “exploding head,” complete loss of smell and partial loss of taste. “After all this time,” she wrote, “I now wonder how much radiation has been a part of my illness.” She has joined a Stop 5G group in her city. To protect herself she keeps her cell phone in a “faraday pouch” when she is not using it, and she turns off her wifi at night. She also asked about the effectiveness of the various devices, pendants and chips being sold to protect oneself from the radiation. I replied to her as follows:

“You are right to wonder how much radiation is a part of your illness. First and foremost, you should not ever use a cell phone or WiFi. Getting rid of all wireless on your person and in your home will make a tremendous difference in your health. A faraday pouch does not block all the radiation. A cell phone radiates even when it is off, as long as the battery is in it. And it takes your body several days to recover, even from a single two-minute phone call. No products will protect you from the radiation — if they do anything at all, those products are dangerous.”

She was shocked, because that is not what everyone else has been telling her. “I have found that most people do not believe cell phones are the issue, just the towers. I must get a landline and work from there,” she wrote back. More Radiation Than Cell Towers

It is beyond me how anyone can expect their cell phone to work if all the towers are not there, but that is not the worst error people are making. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that most of their exposure to radiation is coming from the towers and not their phones and computers. Not only is the opposite true, but it is all one system. The more radiation the towers put out, the less radiation your phone has to emit to connect with them. The less radiation the towers put out, the more radiation your phone emits. You can’t have one without the other.

A cell phone operating at 2 watts (maximum power) held six inches from your head exposes your brain to more radiation than if there were a 200-watt tower ten feet away, or a 2000-watt tower thirty feet away. If you live in a city with a lot of towers, your phone may only emit a milliwatt of power (0.001 watts). But then you’re getting the same radiation from the towers that you would have gotten from your phone if all the towers were not there. It’s all one system. And if you put the 1-milliwatt phone up against your head, you are still exposing your brain to more radiation than from all the towers in the city.

And even when you are only texting, and the phone is only emitting a milliwatt of power, as long as you are touching the phone, the frequencies are being conducted through your hands into your heart, lungs and brain, and your whole body is radiating them into your environment and exposing everyone to them that you pass on the street. And this is not a good thing, because the harm done by the radiation does not depend on power level at all. It depends on the informational content, and we are living in a crazy age where we demand more and more information from our devices, at greater and greater speeds, while our axons and dendrites are trying to send complex information to our brains, and our hearts’ pacemakers are trying to communicate with our hearts’ atria and ventricles, and the oxidative phosphorylation enzymes in our mitochondria are trying to send electrons to the oxygen we breathe in order to generate the energy for life, and our cells are trying to whisper to other cells with instructions about where to go, and what kinds of cells to become, to choreograph our growth, and to orchestrate the healing process when we are injured or ill. And even one milliwatt is millions of times louder than the whispered signals between our cells, which can no longer follow the instructions that they can no longer hear.
And the result is diabetes, and heart disease, and cancer, and neurological disease, at rates that just 25 years ago, at the beginning of the wireless revolution, would have seemed unimaginable, but that are now accepted as normal, because the population is not connecting them, is not willing to connect them, to their cause.

Living in a Prison Created by Phones

I communicate with hundreds of thousands of people, a large number of whom are environmental refugees. Year after year they are moving further and further away from civilization, desperately trying to live where cell phones do not work in order to stay alive, while the rest of the population has grown more and more dependent on their phones, counting on them to work wherever they go.

Even if others know on some level that there is a radiation problem, they don’t really know. “I’ve got to have a phone in case of emergency” means their phones have to be able to work everywhere they go, which means there have to be cell towers everywhere they go, especially in the middle of nowhere, and it means they are condemning all those refugees to torture and death. Never mind all the insects, birds and animals that can never be free of radiation, anywhere on earth, no matter where they fly to or run to to stay alive. If a cell phone will work where they fly, they are being irradiated.

When the wireless revolution came to the United States in 1996, I stayed alive only by leaving my home and my city and my family and friends and camping out in places where cell phones did not work for the next eight years. I have stayed alive since 2004 by living in a location where the conductivity of the earth is extremely high, and I cannot leave. Santa Fe is a nice place, but I am not here by choice. I am here because there is no other place left to even camp. I am here because it is one of the few places on earth that I can stay alive in spite of the fact that a cell phone will work here. It is a nice prison, but a prison nonetheless, a prison from which I have not left for more than a few hours since 2007. I am kept in this prison by everyone who owns a cell phone and expects to be able to use it “in case of emergency.”

I, and the refugees in Green Bank, West Virginia, and the refugees in the French Alps, and the refugees sleeping in their vehicles in the fewer and fewer places that still exist where cell phones do not work, are not different from everyone else, except that at some point in our lives our eyes were opened to what was making us so sick, and that we learned to recognize the effects of radiation and to avoid radiation in order to survive, instead of dying of heart attacks, strokes, and neurological disease. We learned to feel the radiation, which everyone else could also learn to feel if they would only stop using their devices that are numbing them to the pain, stop using them long enough to discover what a horror they are, and what a tremendous difference it makes to their physical and psychological health to get rid of them, permanently, from their person and their home. What a tremendous difference for themselves, for the refugees, for the birds, for the whales. For the honey bee, waiting, imploring, at the top of this newsletter. LAWSUITS BEING FILED IN THE D.C. CIRCUIT
AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTChildren’s Health Defense v. FCC
On February 26, 2021, Children’s Health Defense sued the Federal Communications Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. CHD is asking the court to overturn a new, illegal, unconstitutional order that the FCC had issued the previous day.

The FCC had revised its rules for Over-the-Air Reception Devices (OTARD), which sounds innocuous enough. Except that the new rules have nothing to do with reception devices. Instead they have repealed all zoning regulations for broadband antennas and towers on private property by calling them “reception devices.” Wireless internet providers can now build base stations wherever they please on anyone’s property anywhere in the United States and are no longer subject to any restrictions by cities, counties or states in the unlimited expansion of their networks of towers and antennas.

The lawsuit is Case No. 21-1075 in the D.C. Circuit, and CHD’s opening brief is due on June 23, 2021. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of CHD’s lawsuit is being prepared now that will represent Stop 5G groups, other anti-wireless organizations, organizations representing people injured by radio-frequency radiation, and other environmental organizations in the United States. The amicus brief is due on June 30, 2021. If your U.S. organization would like to join the amicus brief, please contact Petra Brokken atdpetrab@yahoo.com.
City of Portland v. FCC
In 2018, hundreds of cities and counties joined together to sue the FCC over new orders prohibiting states and local governments from regulating cell towers in the public rights-of-way, and on August 12, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against them. On October 22, 2020 the Ninth Circuit denied their petition for rehearing. On March 22, 2021 they appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is City of Portland v. Federal Communications Commission, Docket No. 20-1354.

Together, the FCC orders under challenge by those cities and counties, and the OTARD order under challenge by Children’s Health Defense, mean that local governments in the United States can no longer regulate most towers or antennas anywhere — not on public land and not on private land.
Santa Fe Alliance v. City of Santa Fe
In 2018, the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety sued the City of Santa Fe, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and the United States of America.

Unlike the petitioners in Portland v. FCC, which are suing to be able to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens, the City of Santa Fe and State of New Mexico have voluntarily relinquished that right. Both the City and the State have passed laws repealing all zoning regulations for antennas and towers in the public rights-of-way.

The Santa Fe Alliance is challenging the constitutionality of those City and State laws, and of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits local governments from regulating cell towers on the basis of health and denies people injured by radio-frequency radiation of any remedy.

On March 30, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Santa Fe Alliance, and on May 27, 2021, the Court denied our petition for rehearing. We are preparing to appeal our case to the United States Supreme Court. Our petition for certiorari must be filed in the Supreme Court by August 25, 2021.

Our lawsuit goes to the heart of the problem, which is the unconstitutional law passed by Congress in 1996 that has enabled a thickening fog of radiation to envelop this nation ever since.

Our excellent attorney, Theresa Kraft, who argued our case in the Tenth Circuit, has been sick and in and out of the hospital for two months following her second COVID vaccination, and we must find another attorney to replace her. We are currently contacting law firms. Please contact me immediately if you are an attorney who can help, or if you have a referral to one.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDITIONS OF
THE INVISIBLE RAINBOW My book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, can now be purchased in several languages:

An edited extract from Francis’s Legacy, by E. Michael Jones.
(Pictures, captions, and Talmudic quotes supplied by Lasha Darkmoon).

“If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” — The Jewish high priests Annas and Caiphas to Jesus

If what is left of the WASP establishment wants to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is.

In order to understand this, they will have to go back well beyond the 1960s. In fact, they will have to go back beyond the 18th century: to be precise, 1800 years before that, right back to the opening shot in the culture wars.

This war began 2000 years ago at the foot of the cross, when the Jewish high priests, Annas and Caiphas, said to Jesus Christ, “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.”

Needless to say, Jesus did not come down from the cross. And because he didn’t, the Jews rejected Him. Instead, they chose Barabbas, a bandit who had been condemned to death for his revolutionary activities.At once, by doing this—by preferring a notorious criminal to a man of spotless innocence who had come to redeem them—the Jews became revolutionaries themselves: condemned to seek heaven on earth by following one false Messiah after another from Simon bar Kokhbar to Shabbetai Zevi, from Alex Portnoy to Paul Wolfowitz.As my friend Sam Francis used to say, Who is the real enemy?To answer that question, we need to turn first to Professor Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (NAACP), the premier organization of the Jewish-Black alliance.Kevin MacDonald, America’s premier racial theorist, says pretty much the same thing as Benjamin Ginsberg in an article on the Jewish-Black alliance which appeared inRace and the American Prospect, the book my friend Sam Francis was editing before he died:The record [MacDonald writes] shows quite clearly that Jewish organizations as well as a great number of individual Jews contributed enormously to the success of the movement to increase the power of blacks and alter the racial hierarchy of the United States. (p. 221).Jews have played a prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP was founded by wealthy German Jews, non-Jewish whites and blacks led by W.E.B. Dubois. The Jewish role was predominant.By mid-decade, the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee. . . . By 1920, Herbert Seligman was director of public relations and Martha Greuning served as his assistant. . . . Small wonder that a bewildered [Black Nationalist leader] Marcus Garveystormed out of NAACP headquarters in 1917 muttering that it was a white organization.The NAACP, in other words, purportedly a blackorganization for the advancement of black civil rights, was in fact a Jewishorganization.It was a Jewish organization that mobilized America’s blacks to fight racial discrimination insofar as this was congruent with Jewish goals. Benjamin Ginsberg is remarkably frank in discussing the terms of the Jewish-Black alliance:By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews . . . Jewish groups were able to present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone. This would not be the last time that Jewish organizations found that helping blacks could serve their own interests as well.
We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.
— Israel Cohen, ”A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century”, 1912.
Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957][LASHA DARKMOON SAYS: A valued correspondent, Dick Chardet, has this morning sent me the following extremely apt 1912 quotation by ISRAEL COHEN which reinforces all the points made above. At his request, I add the quote here: It turns out, then, that there is much more to this Black/Jewish alliance than that of simply fighting discrimination.By allying themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy their political influence, i.e., the power and cultural values of the WASPs—an ethos based on 2000 years of Christianity.And so the real enemy, it turns out, was the old enemy who has dogged our footsteps for the last 2000 years: The Revolutionary Jew* * *The Revolutionary Jew, it must be emphasized, is not our enemy because of some occult racial inheritance. The Revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected Logos. This means that Jews, to the extent that they honor and revere Logos, are not our enemies.Note. “Logos” may be defined as the Christ Principle, or the rule of law in a divinely ordered universe. Thus the Logos would seem to be an intrinsic feature of all the great world religions with the notable exception of Judaism—especially in its bizarre Talmudic manifestation. (LD) There are Jews who accept Logos fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth. We all know Jews like this, and they should not be excluded from our fellowship, especially since many of them have suffered at the hands of “the Jews” themselves.As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making.Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the Revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome, they attempted to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias.What does Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar—what does the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek—what does the short lived Soviet Republic of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine—what does Hungary under Bela Kun—what does the racial apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir—what does the neocon Never-Never Land known as the “free and democratic Iraq”—what do all these miserable abortions have in common?Death is what they have in common!Lots of people have to die to bring about the Revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.Key figures in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and the subsequent Soviet Union of the Stalinist era, which claimed the lives (according to Solzhenitsyn) of 66 million Russian Christians between 1917-1953. “With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.” — WINSTON CHURCHILL. (Note. Churchill was unaware that even Lenin was partly Jewish).* * *The West which we seek to preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes discourse possible. The essence of Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to create heaven on earth, is rejection of Logos. It has nothing to do with DNA.The essence of this Jewish rejection of Logos is found and known in the Talmud, which is anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down to rejection of the practical logos known as morality.We saw a good example of Talmudic thought in action during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2006) when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War theory—in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of proportionality. This was apparently a “Christian” ideal and therefore non-applicable to Jews.Christians, if they choose, may spare the lives of civilians and kill their enemies in a restrained manner—“proportionality”—but there is no obligation on Jews to copy the compassionate Christians.Charles Krauthammer, torture advocate, argues in the Weekly Standard (December 5, 2005) that it is not only permissible to hang a suspect up by his thumbs to extract information from him, but that it is a “moral duty” to do so, provided Israel’s security and the lives of a million imaginary people are at stake. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and torture expert, would have approved. He suggests it might be a good idea to torture suspects, even the innocent ones, by sticking needles under their fingernails.The principles of the Just War theory are of course the basic principles of civilized conduct, the bedrock of human decency. Those who refuse to abide by these basic rules are barbarians and deserved to be treated as such. No country can implement Talmudic thought—as America has—and not suffer the catastrophic consequences of Logos rejection: that is to say, the rejection of reason, human rights, and the fundamental ethical principles that are inseparable from civilized behavior.In France, in 1890, in the wake of the one hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, the Jesuits who wrote for Civilta Cattolicaexplained how widespread rejection of Logos, in the form of the French Revolution, led to bondage: in particular, bondage to Jews.The same thing is true of our country in the wake of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We swallowed the bait of sexual liberation and ended up being enslaved by our enemies.Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am saying that the Jews are our enemy insofar as we are partisans of Logos and they are not. They are the enemies of Logos, because their religion is based on hatred of Logos. And nothing makes this clearer than the Jews’ “holiest” book, the Talmud, a compendium of the most diabolical principles ever conceived by the mind of man.Yeshiva student being taught the TalmudOpening the Talmud at random, here are a dozen pearls of wisdom the impressionable young student is likely to encounter: (1) “It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles. All lies are good.” (2) “If a Jew has stolen something from a Gentile and the Gentile discovers it and demands it back, the Jew should simply deny it all. The Jewish court will stand by the Jew.” (3) “A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.” (4) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.” (5) “Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.” (6) “Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.” (7) “A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old … When a grown-up man has intercourse with a litte girl it is nothing.” (8) “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated … A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.” (9) “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.” (10) “When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves.” (11) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.” (12) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.”(For all these quotes and more, see Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. (Formerly titled “The Plot Against Christianity”). See also Michael Hoffman’s monumental 1100-page Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit.)Lytton Strachey and his friends once referred to the subversive movement we call Bloomsbury as the “higher sodomy.” Taking a page from his book, I will refer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as the “higher Logos.”Those of us who follow the higher Logos know, however, that the only proper response we can make to our enemies is to love them, and the clearest manifestation of that love is our desire to bring them to the Truth, otherwise known as the Logos.We should therefore work for their conversion to the Higher Logos.* * *At this point, it should be obvious that I am not just talking about Jews as the enemies of Logos. I am also talking about Christians who want to live and act like Jews. And lest this statement of mine be distorted and presented as evidence of my “anti-Semitism”, let me add that I firmly believe that there are many Jews who are better Christians than quite a few Christians are!The Puritans spring immediately to mind as “bad Christians”, thanks to the toxic Judaizing influence they had on America from the moment of its birth.I am also thinking of the many non-Jewish character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish forms of social control. Their name is Legion. They earn their money by poisoning the public mind.I am thinking of the likes of Alfred Kinsey, a nominal Christian, who to my mind was a far more evil influence than Sigmund Freud, an atheist Jew. (See “The Case Against Kinsey”, here).I repeat: the revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA.We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the Revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians becauseof that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed.Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (1 Thess 1: 15).We are now engaged in a war which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this war have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger. The Christians, specifically the Catholics, have never been weaker.The outcome of this particular war however—and the war for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual war—is rarely predictable, no matter what the odds are.If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong,” (2 Corinthians 12:10) then the Revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite polarity, has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.”We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair.If we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, who was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, we can say with St Paul: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.” (2 Corinthians 4:8)And so, as Theoden said, “We come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” (See Lord of the Rings, here.)Nor, we might add, is there any place to hide.Many of us are have already had our careers destroyed by the Revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Christians to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking out.Our backs are to the wall. We have never been weaker. And our enemies have never been stronger. But that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” (See Lord of the Rings, here.)We have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no We. We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.All we have is various ethnic traditions and communities, united by the frail bonds of Logos, as perceived by the human soul beset by human passions.If our souls are weak, remember that Logos is not. Logos is the glue that binds the universe together.And so it is strong enough to unite us as Americans—whether it be the higher Logos which acknowledges Christ as Lord of the universe, or the lower Logos which honors him by detecting order in the works of creation and beauty in the moral law.We are the party of Logos, and it is only as such that we can think of surviving.If we do not survive, how can we hope to prevail over our enemies?A PALESTINIAN MOTHER AND HER CHILD“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”— Friedrich Nietzsche

https://www.darkmoon.me/2012/who-is-the-real-enemy-by-e-michael-jones/