Briefly Noted: Jonathan Turley On The Libs' China Model For the First Amendment

Jonathan Turley has a nice article on the Prog war on the First Amendment--it's totally out in the open, and quite unabashed. The general thrust of this attitude is supported by recent polling that shows that conservatives are most concerned about various issues facing the nation, but Dems are most concerned about ... Trump supporters. People, not policy.

Turley, of course, focuses on recent targeting by Congresscritters of the Left who are trying to pressure networks like ATT into canceling FoxNews (Turley nows does commentary there, apparently). As usual, Turley ranges widely. What I'd like to draw attention to is simply his lead in, which touches nicely on some historical context. It isn't rocket science, it's just common sense, but it's context that we all need reminding of:

What's Up With Covid?

My impression is that all the talk in the mainstream news is, like: Ya gotta get vaxxed! The Variants are gonna getcha! Be very afraid, even after yer vaxxed!

And yet ...

As Zerohedge discusses today, New Covid Cases Are Crashing. What's going on? 

Well, for starters this phenomenon has nothing to do with vaxxing:

Dr. Wafaa El-Sadr, professor of epidemiology and medicine at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said the falling case numbers can’t be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine, because not even a tenth of the population has been vaccinated, according to the CDC.

And it has nothing to do with lockdowns--check out never-locked-down Sweden on this graph:

What's A Lockdown Good For?

Glad you asked. It turns out that George Soros' World Economic Forum (WEF)--the Great Reset people--run by Soros flunkie Klaus Schwab has an answer (H/T TGP):

NEW - Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum (WEF) tweeted yesterday that "Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world," accompanied by a video showing deserted streets, empty factories, and grounded planes. After backlash, they deleted it. Copy:pic.twitter.com/KWOF1OHkPH

— Disclose.tv 🚨 (@disclosetv) February 27, 2021

Does this suggest how our ruling elite views us little people and what the Great Reset might hold in store for us?

Must Read: The Digital Intelligence Complex

Commenter Cassander regularly recommends the famous Eisenhower "military industrial complex" speech--Ike's final speech as president--seeing this prescient speech as offering insight into the current plight of our constitutional order. Today Red State offers Eric Felten riffing off the Ike theme, in a article that was originally published by Real Clear Investigations:

Sixty Years After Eisenhower’s Warning, Signs of a ‘Digital-Intelligence Complex’

Critics of tech industry power and influence point out that Big Tech is now among the biggest employers of lobbyists, hiring primarily those who formerly worked for government.

The article is a dense case study of the close collaboration between, in particular, Amazon Web Services and the Intelligence Community--forming, it seems, a nearly seamless "Digital Intelligence Complex." We're all aware of this, but this case study method puts faces to what may seem like an almost impersonal development:

The synergy between Washington and Silicon Valley can be seen as the latest manifestation of the Beltway’s revolving door. But the size and scope of Big Tech—and the increasing dependence of government on its products and talent—suggest something more: the rise of a Digital-Intelligence Complex. Like the Military-Industrial Complex that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against in 1961, it represents a symbiotic relationship in which the lines between one and the other are blurred.

But It's not impersonal. In point of fact it's very personal. There are real people behind this development who are benefiting--bigly. Here are the final two paragraphs:

Perennial Principles

Recently I've been pushing the idea that the way forward for Western societies lies in recovering the principles at the heart of the tradition of Christian intellectualism. Only in this way will we be able to see clearly both the problems we face and the solutions we need to work toward. Of course, this calls for education in those principles to internalize them--a reality that has been lost and that is difficult to recover.

Earlier today commenter sawadika, writing on the Professions In A Woke Society post, posed this question:

What you are saying is very true, but if it is a matter of religious philosophy, isn't that ideology and dogma? It just seems so futile--I am looking for a solution in my own life, as it is a very real problem.

This I took to be a clear reference to my discussion and criticism of the notions--expressed in the Daily Signal--of "conservative ideology" and "conservative dogma." For example, I had written:

Many conservatives are unable to actually think or, at least, to express their ideas outside the framework of an essentially subjectivist worldview as enshrined for them in the idea of "natural rights." It goes like this: Everyone is "entitled" to their own opinion. In other words, there's no right and/or wrong, so can't we just get along? Liberals have an answer for that question. It goes like this: We're right and you're wrong; we'll get along once you go along.

Men being men and women being women is neither an 'ideology' nor a 'dogma.' The tradition of Christian intellectualism--'tradition' meaning, handed down through the centuries, is quite capable of addressing such issues in purely intellectual terms on the basis of realist philosophical principles. That was lost with the breakdown of the Christian intellectual tradition under the pressure of Nominalist thought. The classical liberal framework within which so many conservatives live is, on principle, unable to address these issues except as essentially subjective 'dogmas' or ideologies.'

Perhaps this is a good time to explain where I'm coming from, since it's a place that's definitely atypical. My response to sawadika said, in part:

Who's In Charge?

We're only really a month or so in to the Zhou Baiden regime and we're seeing real disarray and infighting. A lot of this is attributable to Zhou's obvious incapacity. Dan Bongino was talking about this last night, saying that his sources ALL say Zhou is in big trouble.

A couple of days ago Don Surber had a clever piece about the Neera Tanden nomination, said to be in trouble. It was longer than his usual quick hits, so I just want to focus on one major point: There's a battle going on to be in charge of the regime, because we all know Zhou is a mere figurehead:

The Halper Memos

Yesterday John Solomon made available the recently declassified asset (Confidential Human Source, or CHS) reports regarding the use of Stefan Halper ("Mitch") in the Crossfire Hurricane (CH) investigation--mostly as it pertained to the Carter Page FISA. Thanks to the actions of disgraced former AG Bluto Barr, this material is essentially only of historical interest at this point. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to readers here for the insights that it offers into how FBI counterintelligence (CI) investigations are run. I say that, knowing that CH is an example of the abuse of the FBI's CI authorities--because what we see in this paperwork is the attempt to make CH *look* normal, even as the investigative guidelines were honored in their breach.

First of all, here's the link to the John Solomon article:

Once-secret FBI informant reports reveal wider-ranging operation to spy on Trump campaign

Goal was to find "anyone" inside GOP campaign tied to Russia who could be get dirt "damaging" to Clinton, newly declassified memos reveal.

Before I go through the actual Halper memos, I'll simply state the big picture that emerges from them. What becomes very apparent is that the background to this series of memos--which begin in mid-August, 2016, shortly after CH was opened--is the Steele dossier. Even though there is discussion of George Papadopoulos as a target--after all, we're supposed to believe that his conversation with Aussie "diplomat" Alexander Downer is what got CH started--the real interest, beyond any doubt, is Carter Page. And that means the Steele dossier, with it's farcical allegations.

Briefly Noted: Professions In A Woke Society

Red State today picks up a story from the Daily Wire about an education major at SUNY. Here's the Red State link:

'A Man is a Man and a Woman is a Woman': Student Suspended for Violating Students' Dignity 'Til He Completes a 'Remediation Plan'

Here's the full statement that the young man made on Instagram:

“Hey, everybody. I’m gonna double down on this point right now. I wanna make myself very clear, so hear what I’m saying. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. A man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man. A man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man. If I’m a man and I think I’m a woman, I’m still a man. If I’m a woman who thinks I’m a man, I’m still a woman. Regardless of what you feel on the inside, [it’s] irrelevant to your biological status. It doesn’t change the biology. The biology is very clear. It’s very, very, very clear. And it’s binary and easy. You fall into either Man or Woman. And if you’re intersex, you either become a man or woman eventually. And that is such a small…group of people that it makes no sense to justify that as statistically significant and apply that to our definition of gender. It wouldn’t make any sense.”

According to the Daily Wire:

Why Do They Want Us All Vaxxed?

Good question, isn't it? I've expressed my view previously that it's a social conditioning op. They want us all to get used to following orders. YMMV.

There's an article under that title at American Thinker today, Why do they want us all vaccinated? While I can't offer a definitive answer to the question, the article does contain a link to a blog that addresses reasons why we should be skeptical--and, by "reasons", I mean sound scientific reasons. The article addresses the latest media hype: The Variants! The Variants are coming! They're killers! They'll kill you worse than HCQ!

Liberal Intolerance As An Established Religion

We're used to the idea that liberalism is a civic religion, in that it presents an all embracing worldview. Characteristic of a civic religion is that dissent is rarely tolerated--indeed, public expression of competing views is regularly discouraged and, when possible, persecuted.

The Founding Fathers believed that Americans had enough in the way of shared Christian beliefs or understandings, derived from a common education rooted in Western history and civilization, that free expression and free exercise of religion could safely be guaranteed in the federal Constitution--even while allowing for established religions in the states. In that sense it's possible to say that a generalized Deism, characteristic of that period of English history, was established by the Constitution as a sort of default civic religion. We can see that in the opening passage of the Declaration of Independence.

At this point in history that type of shared understanding--a common philosophical outlook regarding human nature and the place of man in reality--is sorely and quite obviously lacking. That much is clear from the concerted liberal assault on key provisions of the Constitution, which is now attacked as enshrining White Supremacy, rather than regarded as empowering all citizens to a full life of citizenship. What is also obvious is that the adherents of liberalism are increasingly uncomprehending of even the possibility of disagreement with their views. So much so that the calls to "deplatform" or to "cancel" opponents--not so long ago an unthinkable violation of the spirit of the Constitution--are openly voiced in elite educational, cultural, and political circles. And these "calls" to action are being followed up in ever more coercive ways.

A few examples of where we are at this moment follow. Some may seem ridiculous or trivial, yet they are all too indicative of a societal trend.

Very Briefly Noted: Who Will Run DoJ?

I haven't paid all that much attention to the Garland hearings because I've assumed that Garland will not really be the one running DoJ. Rather, policy will be made by those running the Zhou Baiden regime--the Obama cabal--and will be implemented by the DoJ appointees below the AG level. Garland basically admitted in his testimony that he had no say at all in who his chief deputies would be. That's a clue that he's not in charge.

For those who are interested, it looks rather grim, unless Obama has overreached. Paul Mirengoff explains who those deputies are slated to be--unless they're too radical even for a handful of Dem senators: WHOM TO BELIEVE, MERRICK GARLAND OR OUR EYES?

The two nominees whom Mirengoff singles out for special attention are Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. Both are on record as holding views that can only be interpreted as indicating that they will conduct a legal jihad to marginalize any but the those who hold the most intransigently left wing positions. Mirengoff uses the questioning of Garland by Senator Mike Lee to illustrate.

Gupta, the nominee for Associate AG, is on record as stating that:

Individuals who advocate for the rights of unborn human beings are rendered unfit for public office by virtue of having engaged in such advocacy;

Efforts to purge voter rolls of individuals who have either died or have left the state in question or to require voter identification are racially discriminatory and an assault on voting rights;

Republicans in the United States are determined to leave our communities to the mercy of people and institutions driven by hate, bigotry and fear of any threat to the status quo.

These are views that put Gupta in opposition with the majority of Americans. In any ordinary administration, those views should disqualify her from holding such an influential position. That should tell you all you need to know about equal justice under the Zhou Baiden regime. For an early indicator, look no further: Feds Offer Plea Deal to Brooklyn Lawyers Charged in NYPD Molotov Attack. Compare their treatment with that being meted out to people who simply sauntered into the Capitol on January 6.

UPDATE: Very Briefly Noted: Liberal Wackiness

Here are links to three articles that have this in common--they give examples of liberal craziness that just may galvanize the country and even, as we saw with Naomi Wolf, bring some on the Left over toward a middle of some sort.

Does Merrick Garland Even Know What Day It Is?

Garland appears to be shockingly out of touch with the world around him. Even for a Leftist.

Garland’s hearing was an absolute train-wreck. He showed himself to be a left-wing partisan who couldn’t even answer some of the most basic inquiries. Further, he seemed to have no understanding of the fundamental facts surrounding a variety of issues.

As RedState previously covered, Garland made the ridiculous assertion that Antifa attacks on federal property, including trying to burn down a federal courthouse with people inside, might not be domestic terrorism because it happened at night. He also opined that he’d get to the bottom of the “Capitol Bombing” even though there was no bombing, nor any weaponry used at all in the January 6th riot.

And then there was his inability to "offer an opinion on the legality of crossing the border illegally."

Are Americans ready for this kind of AG? And who will really run DoJ?

We're All Ten Steppers Now

Last night Tucker Carlson interviewed an unusual guest on--as he remarked to her, he's sure she probably lost friends just for appearing on his show. That guest was Naomi Wolf, a long time liberal and feminist activist. However, since 2007 Wolf has been pushing her idea of the threat to American democracy, embodied in her Ten Step program by which democracies are transformed into totalitarian states. She sees these Ten Steps being implemented here in America, and the most recent iteration of her thesis appears in her new book: The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.

Now, I assume, given the date that Wolf started down this path, that she has directed her warning mostly at Republican presidents. She admits, for example, that she voted for Biden--a move that she now says she regrets. To give Wolf her due, much of what she's talking about in her Ten Steps--the surveillance state, etc.--was put in place by the Bush National Security State. The same, of course, applies to the Covid hoax shutdown measures under Trump. Of course, in Trump's case most of these measures were taken in the states. Exactly why Trump did so little to challenge these measures is a matter for debate. Was it out of a mistaken respect for federalism that he failed to aggressively challenge the shutdown of our First Amendment? Did disgraced former AG Bluto Barr play a role in this? The reality, in my view, is that--as Wolf appears to realize--her Ten Step measures have been advanced by the political Establishment, the Uniparty. The case of Trump is most likely best understood as another illustration of the resistance of the Uniparty to Trump's efforts to restore American constitutional order.

Wolf's main point at this juncture is that the Covid casedemic is being used in line with Step Ten of her schema, the final step to full on totalitarianism. Since that's been essentially the viewpoint that I've been presenting, I thought it would be of interest to see this view presented from the Left.

What I've done below is provide a full transcript of Carlson's interview of Wolf. With one exception, I've edited out Tucker's few comments. You can find the full interview beginning around the 11:36 mark at Youtube, or you can get the segment nicely cued up at Fox:

Ex-Clinton adviser Naomi Wolf warns US becoming 'totalitarian state before our eyes' under Biden

Author tells 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' Americans must wake up before it is 'too dangerous to fight back'

Briefly Noted: The SCOTUS Confirms Its Abdication

As I'm sure everyone is aware, the SCOTUS declined to take up the Pennsylvania election cases, on a 6-3 vote. The lead dissent was written by Justice Thomas, with Alito and Gorsuch also dissenting. As Thomas put it (quote borrowed from Red State):

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.

The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal [by the SCOTUS] to do so is inexplicable…

…Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm. (“‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury’”). Petitioners further established a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to regulate federal elections. Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the [Federal] Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”

To my mind this decision simply confirms what was apparent from the refusal to the SCOTUS to take up the Texas election lawsuit that was joined by numerous other states. As I stated at the time, this marks the definitive abdication of the SCOTUS from playing its full constitutional role as a co-equal branch of the government. These cases--so clearly of fundamental importance for our constitutional order as a republic--were very obviously declined on political grounds, and likely out of fear. I fail to see now how the SCOTUS can ever regain its former prestige. One can argue that the abdication took place at some earlier point in history, but to me this decision, by confirming the previous abdication, makes it official and irrevocable. I see no point in discussing it further.

ADDENDUM:

This is not the conservative court that Americans were promised. Barrett & Kavanaugh already look too weak to be taken seriously. The Federalist Society is a joke. The entire facade of institutional conservatism is now crumbling before our eyes. https://t.co/yUm6J6lt4G

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) February 22, 2021

The Global Threat

Yesterday we took a look at the way in which the Zhou Baiden regime is marshalling all the resources at its disposal to wage war against domestic enemies (We Will Crush You). Those resources include government resources--Congressional inquiries, prosecution through DoJ that will focus on conservative dissidents, and a purge of the military to ensure that our armed forces will be a loyal arm of the regime. The resources also include non-governmental entities that are being charged with the all important task of controlling the flow of information and of public discussion. After the fact government measures by means of law enforcement and prosecution working through the courts are too little and too late in the information war--non-governmental social media and tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Amazon can act more efficiently and flexibly without the delay involved with working through the courts. In that regard we quote Caitlin Johnstone regarding the Corporatist model of the regime:

In A Corporatist System Of Government, Corporate Censorship Is State Censorship

In all this we saw the consistent twin focus of the regime and its proxies, a focus that tells us that their immediate concerns are 

1) to safeguard instruments of social control represented by the Covid regime and its vaxxing campaign, and 

2) to safeguard the legitimacy of the regime by suppressing all questioning regarding Election 2020.

 

It's worthwhile to turn to anti-war activist Johnstone's prescient 2018 article for a reminder of how this works and, especially, for the role of the Deep State:

We Will Crush You

If one thing has become clear during these early days of the Zhou Baiden regime, it's that the new regime is determined to crush all dissenting voices that might oppose the regime's agenda. Not surprisingly, that effort is starting on Capitol Hill, guarded now by the New Army of the Potomac--the National Guard units that are the regime's occupying force in the Imperial City on the Potomac. There can be little doubt that Nancy Pelosi's January Sixth Commission will be targeting GOP legislators, given that Pelosi's hand picked witchhunt leader has openly called for the likes of Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz to be "run out of DC" for their alleged role.

But all the forces at the regime's command are being marshalled to solidify power and control. Most chillingly, perhaps, is How the Biden Administration is Politicizing the Military. 

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has made it absolutely clear that the U.S. military’s top priority is not facing external threats, ...  Instead, Austin sees the main threat as coming from within the U.S. military. In his confirmation hearings, Austin said that he would make it his priority to combat racism and extremism in the United States military. ...

 

Can you say "purge"? Any pretense that the national defense will be a bipartisan endeavor has been cast aside:

Naturally Stupid Artificial Intelligence?

I picked this up from Steve Sailer:

Youtube Blocks Its Most Popular Chess Expert for Saying Things Like "Black Threat" and "White Must Attack"

Sailer's comment:

We hear much about the menace posed by racist robots, but mighty Google appears to have succeeded in inventing artificial intelligence with the natural stupidity of a professor of intersectionality.

Apparently the chess expert was unbanned after 24 hours.

The article that Sailer links to notes:

Experts suspect that it was the usage of words like “black” and “white” that confused the Yutube’s AI filters. They found that 80% of chess videos that were flagged for hate speech actually had terms like ‘black,’ ‘white,’ ‘attack’ and ‘threat.’

No Kidding!

Americans answer the burning question about Zhou Baiden with a collective, Duh!

Agree or Disagree: "Joe Biden's not the moderate nice guy that they made him out to be. He's a puppet of the radical left"?

1000 Nat LV's - Agree % / Disagree %
Democrats - 27% / 68%
Unaffiliated - 54% / 37%
Republicans - 82% / 12%
All Voters - 54% / 40%

Weighted D38,R36,IND26 https://t.co/lOgDgVbwL1

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) February 19, 2021

The next obvious question, which unfortunately is not so susceptible to polling is: If he's a puppet of the radical left, then who's pulling Zhou's strings?

Covid: Good News, Bad News

The WSJ featured an article on Thursday by Marty Makary, a public health doctor at Johns Hopkins who has been heavily involved in tracking Covid cases:

We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

Covid cases have dropped 77% in six weeks. Experts should level with the public about the good news.

The article seems not to be behind the usual WSJ paywall, so check it out. Here's my take from it.

It appears that if you read between the lines, Makary is basically presenting the views of immunological and virological experts such as Michael Yeadon and Sucharit Bhakdi (and others). Makary is careful to avoid transgressing the established orthodoxy by suggesting that there isn't actually any real point in mass, coerced vaxxing. However, that is the logical conclusion of most of the data that he presents.

Here's the chart in which he presents that 77% drop in "cases" in the last six weeks--and please note that he doesn't discuss the fraught issue of how to determine what a "case" actually is. However, he does stipulate:

More On Russel Honore

Well, he's not very smart, he's uninformed about the basics of our constitutional order, and maybe a bit crazy--that seems clear enough. Check out this tweet and the Tucker Carlson Youtube:

Pelosi hired a bigot to hunt MAGA. pic.twitter.com/uBsksGZXfs

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 18, 2021

Now here's the Tucker segment. Josh Hawley comes on in the second half--the first half is a bit of an expose regarding Honore, although it's not long enough to cover all his craziness. Example: The federal officers sent to Portland to protect the Federal Courthouse there were "a mob ... serving a dictator." Yes, he said that.

What really caught my attention, though, was when Tucker said he has seen an internal House GOP memo that says that the GOP won't question the continued presence of the New Army of the Potomac in the Imperial City. I'd sure like to know more about that! Tucker characterized that memo as "a betrayal of the nation," and he's right. I saw one report that suggested that the legislators are afraid of a Qanon assault on the Capitol. Wow! That's as crazily conspiratorial as anything Honore has said. Who are these GOPers? Presumably Kevin McCarthy signed off on that.

Anyway, the second half portion of Tucker with Josh Hawley--the "little sh*t with a Yale law degree"--is pretty good:

I got these links at The Federalist.

ADDENDUM: Here's an article about the New Army of the Potomac's continued presence in the Imperial City: Why Is The Guard Still in D.C.: Pentagon Finally Talks About the 'Threat,' That Only Raises More Questions. However, there is no mention of the internal GOP memo that Tucker mentioned. And regarding that "threat":

... when questioned by the Congress on Wednesday in response to a possible future threat such as on March 4, [Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense & Global Security Robert] Salesses said that while the question of threats was an evolving one on which they worked with law enforcement, “At this time, I’m not aware of a threat that is out there.” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told Fox’s Neil Cavuto earlier this week, “Things are safe and secure right now.”

Stereotype Much?

 Per Fox:

The liberal hosts of "The View" blasted conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh the day after his death, saying Thursday that he "normalized hatred" for "people sitting in their trucks in the middle of America" and suggesting he was in Hell.

"I remember listening to him as a kid growing up, and for me, he just normalized hatred," co-host Sunny Hostin said. "He normalized racism, and I think he really weaponized White male grievance, and he hardened these rural White listeners, people sitting in their trucks in the middle of America, and in the south, listening to Rush Limbaugh."

Hostin reeled off a list of what she considered Limbaugh's offensive remarks through the years and said he had paved the way for "Trumpism."

"This is someone who spewed racism and hatred, yet he is now considered I guess an influential person in building the modern Republican Party and conservatism ... I don't know that that's something to be proud of," she said.

So there you are. Now I understand.

The Face Of America To The World?

Imagine if Trump, after his election, had allowed giant corporate mega supporters of his campaign to basically declare war on a foreign ally. Do you think we'd be hearing about it from the Dems?

And yet that's pretty much what has happened. Facebook has declared war on our Five Eye ally Australia. That actually happened after days of digital saber rattling from Google, as well. Big Tech is outraged because the government of Oz want to require them to pay local Aussie publishers for using their content. Via Zerohedge:

Furious Aussies React To "Zero Warning" Facebook Ban On News Content

The pushback and reaction to Facebook's drastic 'retaliation' on the Australian government has been fierce from both officials and the broader public in the hours following the Wednesday decision of the US-based social media platform to block all news sharing on the continent. Australian officials are warning that Facebook's actions are severely damaging the ability to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Facebook announcement came a day after on Tuesday the current session of parliament vowed to implement the so-called "News Media Bargaining Code" by end of next week. The controversial legislation will force major US-based internet companies to begin paying local Australian publishers for use of their content. Aussies are now barred from posting, sharing or even viewing news content on Facebook whatsoever in a move that Google had previously threatened with its search engine. 

Where is the Zhou Baiden regime on this? Is this the Face(book) of America to the world--the face of a bully nation that's run by rapacious Deep State connected corporate giants? For better or worse--very much worse, in my view--that's the reality. Not a good look, for the supposedly most powerful democracy in the world--it's not as if other countries aren't watching and taking note of it all. Of course, they're all probably wondering who to talk to, since Zhou himself is, apparently, snoozing in front of the OO fireplace with his dogs.

Who's running this clown show in the Imperial City on the Potomac?

What Is It About Dems And Witchhunts?

Everyone knew this nonsense about "unity" was eyewash. Likewise, that Pelosi's January 6 Commission would be a latter day HUAC targeting, basically, all normal people, but especially conservatives. Nevertheless, as Roddy Martindale would say, One does like one's perfidy to be subtle--and this isn't subtle at all:

Pelosi’s Pick To Lead Capitol Security Investigation Thinks Hawley Is A ‘Little Piece Of Sh-t’ Who Should Lose His Job

The next time I hear someone say, Thanks for your service! I may literally puke. So many of these retired military and LE have spent years being stroked by sycophants and throwing their supposed weight around--and liking it. It's easy when you can pull rank.

Oh, did I mention?

Pelosi has appointed a retired lieutenant general, Russel Honore, to run her pet commission. Get a load of this guy--runs his mouth off then deletes his tweets:

On January 12, 2021, Honoré tweeted about the US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.): "This little peace of shit with his Yale law degree should be run out of DC and Disbarred ASAP [Senators] Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz aaa hats these Yale and Harvard law grads is high order white privilege."

On January 7, 2021 Honoré speculated that those in charge of security at the Capitol could have been "complicit" in the attack: "By a percentage, 30 to 40 percent of the officers are Trumpsters. That's a fact Jack".

On the same day he called for a boycott of companies advertising on Fox News, claiming that Sean Hannity is a Russian asset: "These are Sean Hannity's leading advertisers. PLEASE stop buying their shit stocks Sean Hannity speaks #Russian iNFO OPERATIONS TO SUCK UP TO #45" ^{[14] [15] [16]}

On January 15, 2021, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that Honoré would lead a review of security failures following the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol that will focus on “security infrastructure, interagency processes and procedures, and command and control”. ^[17] [18] On February 17, 2021, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) criticized Honoré appointment: "General Honoré is an extreme partisan and should be the LAST person to head up an investigation of what happened at the Capitol on Jan 6th." ^[14]

Interestingly, in August, 2020, Honore called for a "march on Washington" to "stop" what he referred to as "Trump's sabotage" of the coming election. Incitement anyone?

I wonder what Mitch McConnell is doing right now? Looking for a bridge to other GOPers to burn, if there are any left that he hasn't torched yet? His rhetoric plays right into the latest witchhunt, but I doubt many senators will be amused.

Follow Up: "Chicago schools face nightmare"

The eyes of people who care about government run education are on Illinois these days. The scheme to mandate a radical progressive remake of education in the State--transforming government teachers into tax supported community organizers and students into activists--will undoubtedly serve as a model for the rest of Blue America, if it passes (cf. Ultra-Woke Indoctrination In Government Schools Is Closer Than Most Realize). The vote was supposed to happen yesterday, but was moved to today. 

Fox has a powerful piece today on the situation, which focuses on Chicago's government schools. Those schools, which the radical progressive government teachers union has kept closed all year, are supposed to begin reopening in the lower grades, but Chicago government high schools will remain closed for the entire year. It was all done in the name of allowing government teachers to "feel safe" from Covid--an attitude that study after study has shown to be without any basis in scientific fact. Naturally, those who have been harmed the most by the lockdown of government schools--again, study after study shows it--are the children of the progressive Dem core constituencies, especially black Americans. Yes, those would be the same children who will supposedly benefit from mandated woke indoctrination, rather than learning the Three R's.

What Keeps Bill Gates Awoke At Night?

Yesterday Edward Ring ran a fascinating piece that explains the love affair of our elites with the Chinese model:

California’s Multibillionaires Intend to Conquer the World

To understand what the establishment (of which Joe Biden is a mere figurehead) has in mind for America, we must first understand the Golden State.

It's a long and interesting article but I'll cut right to the ... cusp of it. There are actually three cusps. Here's what Ring means. Bill Gates and the elite circle of multibillionaires see the fundamental problem facing Gaia and its inhabitants as Overpopulation. There are too many people and, no, that doesn't mean too many multibillionaires. It means too many other people--people like you and me:

Mike Pence

Not long ago I ran a tweet by Emerald Robinson (Newsmax WH correspondent) that suggested that the GOPe's goal for 2024 is to run a Pence/Haley ticket. Fortunately, that ploy--and I doubt Robinson was engaging in narrative building--has fallen rather flat, so far. Major donors are reportedly shunning Haley.

Today American Greatness has a must read article entitled:

How Loyal Was Mike Pence?

Pence was perfectly suited to be vice president . . .

for Mitt Romney.

The article, written by Carmen Catanzaro (a pseudonym for "a Republican insider") isn't a full blown expose, but it does present a highly unflattering portrait of Pence--if a flattering portrait would have included portraying Pence as loyal to the guy who pulled him off the rubbish heap of politics in Indiana and gave him entree to the power broking circles in and around the White House. In other words, the answer to the title question is: Not very, if at all. Catanzaro portrays Pence as a Boehner, Ryan, Romney Republican, who reliably advanced the Neocon goal of an Imperial America:

Media Attempts To Portray Zhou Baiden As, Uh, Somewhat Involved

We're starting to learn more about the daily schedule of the Zhou Baiden regime, and specifically about Zhou himself--his daily schedule. Turns out, according to the fawning MSM, that Zhou likes a very orderly life--you might almost say, really laid back. CNN tells us that Zhou is an early-to-bed guy. Which makes sense, since apparently people suffering from dementia tend to get agitated in the evening. Elsewhere I've read that he doesn't drag his ass into the Oval Office till, oh, around 9AM. That kind of schedule used to be known as bankers' hours. Who knew POTUS was such an easy gig? 

It helps, of course, that Kama Sutra is apparently handling some of the head of state calls, and who knows what other things. Those would come under the rubric of what we in federal "service" used to winkingly refer to as "other duties as assigned." Whatever helps Zhou make it through the day. Flexible. Hand him the pen, push an executive order in front of him, turn his note cards right side up, take phone calls from foreign people. That kinda stuff.

So what's Zhou actually doing in the Oval Office? Well, again according to CNN, he likes to have a fire in the fireplace and to be joined by his dogs. He even adds a log to the fire all by himself, sometimes. They say he also likes to read "letters from Americans." When he's not signing executive orders.

Regarding head of state meetings, something a regime head traditionally does, we were preemptively advised--so we wouldn't pester Jen by asking--that Zhou won't be meetings those heads of state for, let's see, maybe the next couple of months? 

Oh, I should specify, I was talking about heads of foreign states. But, then, it seems Zhou hasn't been speaking to the heads of US states, either. Those are the people we call "governors". Some of them govern states that have been struggling with some really brutal winter weather. Zhou has been "kept abreast" of all that and has been provided "regular updates", but his quality time--snoozy time?--with his dogs in front of the fireplace has not been interrupted by actual phones calls with those "governors." Not as such. 

I guess this POTUS thing is just part of the gig economy now. And Zhou has never been one to look a gift gig in the mouth. So to speak.

Unbelievable

My very bad--I somehow missed this terrific article by John Solomon back on February 5th. While I admit that my interest in the Russia Hoax has flagged due to, well, Barr and Durham, I do follow Solomon. This somehow eluded me, and it offers a picture of just about unbelievable corruption:

FBI's desperate pretext to keep spying on Carter Page: He might write a book!

Newly declassified FISA application shows FBI, without proof, portrayed First Amendment-protected activities as Russian plot.

Solomon is not making that up. Here is the passage from p. 57 of the third renewal FISA against Page in which that pretext is presented to the court:

"The FBI also notes that Page continues to be active in meeting with media outlets to promote his theories of how U.S. foreign policy should be adjusted with regard to Russia and also to refute claims of his involvement with Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election. [REDACTED - SENSITIVE INFORMATION] The FBI believes that Page may have been instructed by Russian officials to aggressively deny, especially in the media, any Russian involvement with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The FBI believes this approach is important because, from the Russian government's point of view, it continues to keep the controversy of the election in front of the American and world medium, which has the effect of undermining the integrity of the US electoral process and weakening the effectiveness of the current US administration. The FBI believes Page also may be seeking media attention in order to maintain momentum for potential book contracts."

Where to begin? Let's start with the redaction. Solomon points out that in the copy of the FISA application that was given to the Senate Judiciary Committee just last fall--meaning, it was provided by Trump's FBI Director, Chris Wray--the portion about "the FBI's unsubstantiated theory that Russia had instructed Page to [write a book and do media interviews] was [also] blacked out." On what basis would idle, unsupported speculation have been redacted? It makes you wonder about the "sensitive information" that remains redacted.

Ultra-Woke Indoctrination In Government Schools Is Closer Than Most Realize

As some of you may already be aware, Illinois is currently getting ready to pass radical new measures that will transform government schools into centers of 'woke', i.e., leftist prog, indoctrination. I know many think that's what they are already, and you're right if that's what you think. However don't kid yourself that we've reached the bottom of the slippery slope yet.

Stanley Kurtz has a lengthy article about what so far looks like will become law in Illinois--Ultra-Woke Illinois Mandates Are Top Threat to U.S. Education. Here's how he sets up his detailed analysis:

UPDATED: Michael van der Veen Speaks--And How!

Perhaps many readers have already seen this CBS interview with Trump attorney Michael van der Veen. He doesn't give an inch to the liberal reporter, and when she attempts to diminish the significance of the House Dems falsifying evidence in a Senate trial, he totally unloads on her. I like the touch at the end when he identifies himself as "citizen"--watch for that. 

You may, like me, find his talk of "Left and Right" finding a "middle" to be hopelessly naive, but for the rest his righteous outrage was refreshing:

Trump defense attorney Michael van der Veen speaks with @LanaZak after the Senate's acquittal vote: "What happened at the Capitol on January 6 is absolutely horrific. But what happened at the Capitol during this trial was not too far away from that."

Watch the full interview: pic.twitter.com/ndjBZzJgNZ

— CBS News (@CBSNews) February 13, 2021

UPDATE: I'm not sure, but when van der Veen says that there were other examples of House Dem misconduct he may have been referring to the Raskin statements about Beutler's claims re the McCarthy phone call with POTUS. Jonathan Turley points out that Raskin claimed the Beutler statements were breaking news from "last night" that couldn't have been presented at the trial during the past few days. In fact, of course, Beutler's statement had been known for weeks:

The statement quoted Beutler as saying that she had previously discussed the call in public. Keep in mind Raskin just claimed that this was new evidence from “last night” and  the Senate needed to call witnesses on this “additional critical piece of corroborating evidence."

 

A Brief GOP Status Check

Shipwreckedcrew has some tweets and an article out that discuss what could be called "impeachment and beyond". In other words, what meaning can we draw from the breakdown of the impeachment vote and what can we reasonably predict about where the GOP is headed during the next four years.

For now I think we can take it as given the Trump is not going to go away. He isn't going to concede, he'll find some forum for communicating directly to America over the heads of the lilliputians in DC. As for the Imperial City, it will remain under military occupation and much of the country will be under effective hostile occupation in the form of lockdowns to one degree or another--heightening the differences between Red and Blue America. As for any legislative agenda on the part of the Zhou Baiden regime, I'll be very surprised if anything at all gets done. And then there will be the inevitable problems that will arise--foreign and domestic. The border crisis is already raising its head. Crime will remain endemic in Blue cities. I expect a mess--at best.

As for the impeachment vote, SWC is totally cynical. Here's his short version from his article:

The GOP Sorts Itself Out -- Putting Defense of Pres. Trump Behind Them Is Different Than Putting Pres. Trump Behind Them

Donald Trump is not in the [rear] view mirror of the Senate Republicans.  Forty-three of [them] recognized the silhouette of him on the highway up ahead, and acted accordingly.

In other words, surprise! They voted their political interests.

That should go without saying, in the general run of politics, but it may not be quite that simple. SWC runs through the seven RINO votes. Here's how I break them down:

Is Pence - Haley The Gameplan?

I have absolutely no idea, of course, but ...

These tweets are interesting food for thought:

It's weird that Democrats want to call Pence's chief of staff Marc Short, right?

Wrong. It's only the 4th time that Pence's staff have "reluctantly" helped Dems try to impeach Trump. https://t.co/OYVUQ5fBhQ

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) February 13, 2021

People can't believe the GOP would impeach Trump to clear the way for Pence/Haley 2024. Really?

The GOP big donors want Pence/Haley. They don't really care what voters want.

They pushed Jeb in 2016. And Paul Ryan before that. And Dan Quayle before that. Remember?

— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) February 13, 2021

UPDATED: Briefly Noted: It's All Over But The Whining--And The Military Occupation

FARCE: After the devastating video evidence of their hypocrisy yesterday the Dems obviously realized their faux impeachment had blown up in their faces. This morning the briefly tried a desperation tactic--changing the rules on the fly and calling at least one witness. Trump's team countered that they would then call at least two witnesses--Pelosi and Bowser. Woops! Dems folded like a cheap suit.

IN A RELATED DEVELOPMENT: According to representatives of the Zhou Baiden regime, its Imperial City on the Potomac will remain under military occupation indefinitely--possibly including active duty troops and reserves, in addition to the NG. No word on whether they'll be equipped now with crew served machine guns, as reportedly requested by top Dems:

America's National Surveillance State

Today at American Greatness there's a book review that I highly recommend. It follows on nicely from yesterdays brief post about Big Business as Big Brother, especially in light of what is clearly an alliance between Big Tech and the Deep State intelligence community.

The review, Deep State, Dark Intentions, is of a book by Barton Gellman about the pervasive surveillance state that America has become: Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the American Surveillance State.

Gellman was one of the journalists to whom Snowden leaked the NSA files that revealed the full scope of the post 9/11 surveillance state put in place by our Deep State. While the blurb at Amazon describes the book--in the first instance--as "a gripping inside narrative of investigative reporting as it happened", the review spares us that part and instead focuses on the second aspect of the book that will be of most interest: the "deep dive into the machinery of the surveillance state."

As the reviewer, Lucja Cannon, notes, most Americans will be unfamiliar with the history of surveillance in the United States. I suspect that most Americans are under the impression that, until FISA was enacted in 1978, Americans were somehow protected from government surveillance by the 4th Amendment's warrant requirement. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Before FISA there were no legal restraints on government surveillance in the national security sphere. Let me repeat that: there were no legal restraints on national security surveillance. The real restraints were technological. And to this day there are no definitive SCOTUS cases on these issues--the existing precedents basically affirm the pre-FISA state of affairs. 

This places FISA on somewhat shaky grounds from a constitutional standpoint. However, nobody has been really interested in challenging the constitutionality of FISA. From the government's practical perspective, FISA allowed the government to get what it needed done, with the added benefit of a legislative imprimatur on its surveillance activities. From the civil liberties standpoint, FISA offered a "warrant" requirement--albeit an anomalous one--and, from a practical standpoint FISA cases weren't going to end up in actual trials. The result was a sort of standoff, but one which was ripe for government abuse--as I've pointed out in citing Robert Bork's views on FISA, expressed at the time of its passage. Bork's view was that, by making national security surveillance an essentially administrative matter--despite all the external trappings of a "FISA court" and "applications" and "warrants"--the result would be that nobody would really be accountable in the sense of facing criminal accountability. I think that's what we're seeing now in the wake of the Russia Hoax. Bork's view appears to have been vindicated.

Briefly Noted: When Corporations Are Big Brother

Michael Snyder has a nice piece that's been republished at Zerohedge:  When Corporations Become More Powerful Than The Government, Our Definition Of "Big Brother" Needs To Change. He's working off a op-ed at Newsweek by Orin Hatch, Reining in the Techno-Oligarchy. Both are worth looking at, if only to solidify your perspective on the state of the public square. While neither Snyder nor Hatch quite explicitly state that Big Business is pushing a specific ideology, it's implicit in the singling out of conservative voices for canceling. Thus, when Big Business becomes Big Brother what happens is that they acquire the power to advance a well defined ideological agenda, but without the nuisance of having to be elected.

The problem is that most politicians see no incentive to rein in our corporate overlords. On the Left, politicians and big business are ideological allies. On the right, in order to get elected it's easier to scramble for crumbs under the corporate table than to spend most waking hours grubbing for small donor contributions. The politicians are owned by big business and, for most, it's a relationship that works. For them--not for America, and not for We The People with opinions, in particular.

Here's a brief excerpt from Snyder, which includes a quote from Hatch as well:

Briefly Noted: The National Disgrace Of Our Politics

Yes, of course I'm referring to the latest faux impeachment. This new low in our political theater has been exacerbated by the introduction of a military occupation of our capital city into the mix of outrages to the body politic, along with the attempt to turn the the latest liberal boogey man--no less than the former president and the 75 million people who voted for him--into non-persons.

I refuse to dignify this farce by paying much attention to it--especially since it's a ploy that's once again doomed to fail. However, I would like to note two articles that strike the proper note or chord.

The first article is brief: A Monsoon of Manure. Or, if you prefer straightforward Anglo-Saxon, a blizzard of BS. The article's thesis is simple but very much to the point of the state of our public discourse:

News Flash: All Publicity Is Good Publicity

As expected, the Senate's attempt at a show trial has turned into a low kind of political farce, but even at that it's a failure. There's no drama and no humor, so what's the point? There's not even any real interest for armchair legal analysts. The only question that offers something remotely like suspense is whether Schumer will be able to hold the Dems together in a block. Lindsey Graham says the whole thing is an insult and that any movement is in favor of Trump. 

Improbable as this may seem, it really does appear that the Dems, in their Ahab like obsession to cancel "Moby" Trump thought keeping Trump before the public eye by making fools of themselves was somehow a good idea. Mark Levin captures the spectacle exactly:

“First of all, we are watching one of the stupidest events by some of the stupidest people in American history, ...”

That seems pretty inarguable. And Levin sums up by explaining why this non-event is so lacking in interest:

Briefly Noted: The Vision Thing

"The Vision Thing" is Jen Dyer's latest article. As usual with Dyer, it's humongously long. Here a link to the full title:

The vision thing: Handy guide to the biggest earthquake in human affairs in 2,000 years

While the entire article is extremely lengthy, what I see as the true core is brief enough and follows on conveniently from two recent posts here:

On Neo-Gnostic Ideologies

The Christian Intellectual Tradition

Dyer's article is basically about: Where are now? and, What do we do about it? What recent events tell us is where we are as a nation. Duh! These events tell us that we're a deeply divided nation that is definitively ruled by an oligarchy that is composed of: a corrupt political class, a class of radically ideologized neo-gnostic public and university activists, Deep State actors in the military, diplomatic and, above all, intelligence agencies, and Big Tech corporations.

How divided is the United States? My guess is that America is not quite as divided as the 50/50 election results over the last several national would indicate. The hard left element of the population--or that element that is willing to throw the constitutional order (such as it now is) up for grabs--probably doesn't exceed 30%. The difficulty is that a significant portion of the remainder are not committed to the steps needed to wrench control back from the ruling oligarchy--they'd like to muddle along in the hope that a non-upsetting solution will emerge. The real question for our future becomes: How committed will the Left be to pushing their agenda through if popular resistance stiffens and spreads? And of course the wild card is in the "if".

With this in mind, here's the core, as I see it, of Dyer's article. The reason I say this brief passage is the core is because Dyer doesn't actually offer a plan of action. At all. She says we need to see what emerges, much as I just said. However, here are her guiding ideas:

China's Population Woes

While China currently looks to be taking over the world, it faces serious problems. For right now, the PRC's economy is slowing significantly. But in the longer term the country looks to be caught in the classic ‘middle income trap’, in which the population grows old before the country becomes rich. 

Now comes news that China is poised to move into long term population decline, with nearly a third of its population above working age and new births plummeting. Overall, new births were down 15% from 2019, while in some regions the decline was as much as 30%. China lacks a true social security net and has relied on the younger generation to support the elderly, but this system will become increasingly strained as the population continues to age rapidly--and to shrink. For more specifics:

China population: Tumbling regional birth rates signal scale of country's ageing crisis

Note well--this isn't simply a 'problem'. It's a crisis for the economy and for the social fabric of the country.

The second half of the article goes into the implications of this crisis, beginning with a quote from an official at a government supported population think tank:

The Christian Intellectual Tradition

The other day I did a post featuring a description of the Neo-gnostic currents of ideology that are so dominant among the Ruling Class in modern America. While these ideologies obviously involve the manipulation of concepts--often to an excessive degree of complexity, with resort to outlandish neologisms--they are actually characterized by a desire to conform reality to the human will, either in the form of escapism or, as we see increasingly, a demonic will to power. As such, despite the excessive rationalism they exhibit--the conceptual gymnastics--these ideologies are actually anti-intellectual in this sense: the use of conceptualism is about escapism or domination, but in neither case about deep and sympathetic understanding of reality.

Today at the same site that I linked (above) Peter Kwaśniewski--another traditionalist Catholic thinker--has an article that describes the alternative to Neo-gnostic ideology: What Is the Catholic Intellectual Tradition? Before quoting several of the basic elements of this intellectual tradition--or perhaps, better, this tradition of intellectualism that seeks to unite the understanding to reality in a sympathetic fashion--I'd like to suggest two points of reference for readers in evaluating what Kwaśniewski has to say.

The first point of reference is the thought of C. S. Lewis. I suspect many will be familiar with one or more of Lewis' books. Lewis himself, of course, was a noted intellectual as well as a committed Christian and championed in his books the Thomist style of intellectualism that came down through the likes of Anglican thinkers like Richard Hooker.

The second point of reference is simply the experience of each reader. My contention is that these essentials of intellectualism reflect what we could call the overall spirit of the American tradition--a tradition of reasonability and of an embrace of reality that unites the American tradition with the intellectual tradition of the West while setting it apart from Neo-gnostic ideologies. I'm thinking here of something along the lines of Russell Kirk's Roots Of American Order.

I realize that, historically, this may appear to be an over simplification. However, I'm not attempting here a detailed demonstration but simply a kinship of spirit, of intellectual approach, as distinct from the dominant ideologies of our Ruling Class that so violently reject the intellectual tradition of the West.

So, here we go, in severely abbreviated excerpts. I offer this for those who are seeking to consciously define where they stand as opposed to the currently dominant forces that seek to transform us into their image and likeness.

UPDATED: Now That Faux Impeachment Is Over ...

Well it is over, right? It was over once Rand Paul forced a vote, and today's vote confirms the one thing necessary: There's no way that the 44 senators who (correctly and righteously) voted that this proceeding is an unconstitutional farce will then somehow vote to convict. Not gonna happen, never was gonna happen. Meanwhile, Trump remains as popular as ever.

Which brings us to the really interesting question: What's next?

CTH has a very good post on this topic. Sundance starts out by hitting on the fact that the Left--in this case, Politico--is slowly coming to the realization that Trump really is teflon coated. The faux impeachment will only harden the resolve of Trump's 75 million supporters. Can the Dems say that about Zhou Baiden or anyone else they care to bring forward? The spectacle of a political show trial in a capital city under military occupation to protect the coupsters will ultimately not be lost on Americans.

So, again: What's next?

Sundance focuses on the possibility of a third party, noting that "Trump’s MAGA army is the ultimate political splitter party." How so? Here's how:

Briefly Noted: Green Jobs All Going To China?

Judging by Germany's experience, our out of jobs pipeline workers may not be making solar panels any time soon. As reported by James Delingpole at Breitbart: Green Jobs Collapse in Germany and Go to China Instead. What a Surprise! 

‘Green jobs’ in the German renewables sector have collapsed by 50 per cent in less than a decade. No prizes for guessing where they’ve gone instead – but here’s a clue: it begins with ‘C’ and ends with ‘-hina’.

If those workers and their families were already p*ssed, imagine how they'll feel when they find out where the jobs have gone!

According to Clean Energy Wire:

The number of jobs in the German renewables sector (production and installation) has fallen from about 300,000 in 2011 to around 150,000 in 2018, the German Trade Union Association (DGB) found in an analysis of employment in the energy transition.

The drop in employment is mostly due to the collapse of Germany’s solar power industry over the past decade, as many companies were forced out of business thanks to cheaper competitors from China scooping up most of the market. The number of jobs in solar PV panel production and installation fell from a record 133,000 in 2011 to under 28,000 seven years later.

In the wind industry, the number of jobs dropped from its record of roughly 108,000 in 2016 to under 70,000 just two years later. “Employment with respect to construction renewable energy installations has been very dynamic in the last 20 years, both in a negative and in a positive way,” the DGB said, arguing that many more jobs could be created in the sector again.

And, no, none of this is a surprise, nor is there any good news or any excuse for the politicians who are responsible:

On Neo-Gnostic Ideologies

The great constant in human life, as we live our life stories out in history, is the search to understand the meaning of our lives. The constant temptation is the attempt to assign a meaning to the world of reality rather than discover such meaning as is accessible to our understanding. To discover meaning requires patience and persistent effort--and humility. But life is ultimately short and man tends to be impatient. Throughout history there have been repeated attempts to legislate--as it were, by an act of our will--the meaning of existence: to make the meaning of existence to be what we want it to be rather than humbly submit to such meaning as we may be able to discover.

The urge to follow our will in assigning meaning to existence has become the defining note of modern ideologies, described by Eric Voegelin as neo forms of the ancient gnostic current of thought. The motivation may vary. At times the motivation may be simple despair of achieving certainty in our lives in a disordered world. At other times this urge to will a meaning into existence may be motivated by rage at injustice or, demonically, a will to power. As modern man has rejected traditional Christian faith, he finds himself more and more a prey to ideologies that promise heaven of one sort or another in this life. That promise has become the common currency of American politics, certainly and overtly on the Left, but sometimes more subtly on the Right as well.

Today at the traditionalist Catholic site, One Peter Five, there's a post that discusses this aspect of modern life from a traditionalist Catholic perspective. Unfortunately, the title--Currentism: The Perennial Lie--uses an awkward neologism, but as you'll see the author is speaking of Neognostic ideologies. I'm offering some excerpts below because it may help some to orient themselves in these confusing times in which the Left appears to be riding high in their attempt to propagate the "perennial lie" and to dominate and shape reality to their own desires. As the author maintains, these efforts always lead to tragedy and suffering if not checked, and yet the appeal of the perennial lie to many--as well, also, to those who seek personal power--is undeniable.

This Looks Increasingly Desperate

The Dems and their proxies--or should that be vice versa?--desperately want you to believe that the Zhou Baiden regime is perfectly normal. It's just one more example of American Exceptionalism, whereby America returns to normal through the Ruling Class nullification of We The People through a hoax election. That would be truly exceptional, if it could be pulled off. It's unlikely, but they're trying. Thus, unless you follow the UK papers you'd never know that Doctor Jill and her patient were booed at some superspreader, er, football game or other.

Presumably this is why they're also going ahead with their faux impeachment, despite an almost palpable lack of interest from the country at large. If the country were really back to normal the Dems would be doing normal things, instead of holding a blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder trial before a political body. A hoax trial that even a pushover like John Roberts won't dignify by his presence, in a capital city under military occupation. But I guess the new regime has no other choice but to try to demonize the ousted president if they're going to try to persuade the subject population that the coup was justified. 

Naturally, in the circumstances, polls run by lefty outfits like ABC have to claim that something like 56% of Americans want Trump to be "convicted." I'm not buying that, for several reasons. One of those reasons is that hardly anyone is paying attention. Or not enough attention to interest them in watching this farce. According to Rasmussen:

A Fascinating Historical Analogy For This Faux Impeachment

Big H/T to Don Surber, who came up with the article that sketches out a fascinating and instructive historical analogy for the continuing constitutional hoax being perpetrated in the Imperial City on the Potomac, under the occupation of the New Army of the Potomac. We'll get to that shortly, but first I intend to quote a few passages from two other articles that address this hoax briefly but succinctly.

First of all, Jordan Davidson at The Federalist sketches out the most important element of the reply brief that Trump's attorneys have filed today--Trump Legal Team Decries Democrats’ ‘Outlandish’ Impeachment As Unconstitutional ‘Political Theater’. As we'll see, the lack of a legal or even a constitutional basis for this proceeding in the Senate plays into the historical analogy. Here is a passage toward the end of the article that sketches this out:

UPDATED: Peter Navarro: Bluto Barr Shoulda Been Fired A Year Earlier

In an interview this morning with Maria Bartiromo, former Senior White House Economic and Trade Advisor Peter Navarro ripped disgraced former AG Bluto Barr. Said Navarro (almost verbatim), Barr should've been fired a year before he was. During the last year Barr was working against the Trump administration. 

The context for these remarks was the issue of Executive Orders. As Navarro explained, the last step in getting an Executive Order approved is that the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel has to sign off on its legality. According to Navarro, Barr slow walked many important Executive Orders during the last year of the Trump administration, but fast tracked the 17 Executive Orders that Zhou Baiden signed on Day One of the new regime.

UPDATE:

In a similar phone call from Bill Barr to me, he made it clear that investigating the evidence behind the claims were not his first priority... https://t.co/WGrUkypIyX

— Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) February 8, 2021

Did You Know That Bill Gates Is A Population Extremist?

I just thought I'd ask that.

Here's another question. What do some--most? all?--of our "settled science" hoaxes have in common? That's right! Anthropophobia. Spellchecker suggests I've just invented a new word, but, you get the the drift.

Of course the economic crisis brought on by the Great Never-ending Bailout of 2008 started a major decline in fertility--which was already at a low level. And now we're learning that--on top of that--Covid is no good at all for fertility. You can read about it here:

Scientists Ominously Warn COVID Is Reducing Fertility

 

Zerohedge's take on that report is worth reading, too. So too is Zerohedge's conclusion on the economic effects of fertility decline--America's Lost Decade In Fertility Results In 5.8 Million Fewer Babies:

Millions of missing babies and slumping fertility rates in the US are bad news for the economy. 

Family formation and child-rearing are the drivers of spending and consumption. A loss of millions of babies in the US over the last decade suggests slower growth is ahead. 

To prevent a plunge in the economy and asset prices, we outlined how "declining quantity of females of childbearing age coupled with ongoing declining fertility rates means births will continue declining... and organic demand declining... and only via destructive federal government / central bank ZIRP, NIRP, and market manipulation, can consumption and asset prices be manipulated upward."

... and just when everyone thought the rollout of the vaccine was going to save humanity and the economy, it turns out new research has uncovered COVID-19 is reducing fertility in men. 

This leaves us with one scenario: crashing fertility rates not just in the US but possibly the world may continue for the time being. 

Fewer births and longer life expectancy will also mean a drastically older population. 

Now word yet on what effect the rad new 'vaccine' has. Who thinks it's a good idea to kill jobs at this point? Do we get to vote on that? Woops!

SARS Covid: The View From 2005

I think many readers are aware that as long ago as 2005 the "potent" anti-viral properties of Chloroquine--with specific application to the SARS Coronavirus, the progenitor of SARS Covid 2019--were well known. Today at FR there's a post of portions from a well known 2005 study. One of the commenters notes that at the time this was published the study was lauded by none other than Tony Fauci. So, if you're wondering why nobody seems to have been working on a vaccine for SARS, this may be the answer: Why develop a vaccine for a disease for which we appear to have a highly effective treatment? 

Ah, those were the days of long ago, the days of our innocence, when nobody imagined you could get away with suppressing safe and effective treatments, scare the bejabbers out of the general population with a hoax casedemic, and then make a killing off a vaccine that wasn't really needed. Along those lines, the top medical official in Chicago has now announced that healthy individuals under 65 needn't bother.

Here's what was posted at FR: