Category Archives: On the Road to Serfdom ?

The Worldly Pain Of Young Americans

by Mark Bauerlein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A survey by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University reported findings that won’t surprise anyone who’s been paying attention. Among Millennials and members of Generation Z, fully one-in-three individuals suffer from some kind of mental disorder. Anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts afflict them, and the mental problems frequently manifest in physical symptoms.

Billion Photos/Shutterstock

That’s not the evidence of the Research Center study, though. The mental health numbers above come from federal government agencies, which the Center cites in order to set up its attachment of these emotional pains to another factor, a cause rarely considered by public officials in charge of data collection and population surveys. Here is how the Center and its staff led by George Barna put it:

“… Barna and his colleagues suggest that addressing those conditions may not require counseling, hospitalization, drugs, or other common remedies.

“The research instead indicates that those are often symptoms of an unhealthy worldview …”

That’s the assumption, a close relationship between a person’s general worldview and a person’s emotional state. A 20-year-old who thinks the world is a cruel habitat, that the world doesn’t care about individual human beings, that people are selfish and life is hard… that 20-year-old will feel the effects of that pessimism. He embraces a nihilism about the world that will recoil upon him and bring him down, that will include him in the negative judgment. If he thinks that climate change will bring devastation to the earth in the next 30 years, he loses hope and wonders what to do with his life. If he doesn’t trust other people, he can’t form solid and affirming relationships. Emotional agonies are inevitable.

Data that the Center has gathered add support to the assumption. Consider these results:

  • Seven out of ten individuals under 40 years of age who responded to Center questionnaires stated that they “lack a sense of purpose and meaning in life.”
  • Only 13 percent of Generation Z and 22 percent of Millennials believe that “absolute moral truth exists and is an objective reality.”

Given those dispiriting beliefs, we shouldn’t shake our heads at the malaise and panic of the young. In former times, thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger described such regrettable attitudes in terms that combined the philosophical and the psychological, for instance, “ontological insecurity” and “metaphysical discomfort,” which they understood as peculiarly modern diseases. Those traits are still with us, Barna et al. insist, and they run in two directions, outward and inward. That life has no purpose slides smoothly into “I have no purpose.” To think that moral truth is a relative or subjective thing only is to deny oneself a reliable foundation of judgment and conviction. Young Americans are fractious and fragile, and who can avoid that condition in a world so utterly careless and capricious.

The daily experience of average 16-year-olds only reinforces the negative worldview they bear. The videos they watch, the music they hear, the texts and photos that flood their phones, the movies and TV shows they favor—it’s a wave of entertainment that shows people behaving badly with no moral accounting. These media allow for no transcendence and no organized worship, no prayer or devotion. They are the bricks of youth culture, which doesn’t revere the past or envision a happy future. No deep meanings and profound truths. The producers of it purvey shallow ideas and emotional chaos. We have handed the rising generations an environment hostile to their souls.

The mental problems of 21st-century youth are real. Our methods of treating them are pharmacological and therapeutic, wholly individualized. These procedures are often incomplete.

We should add to the mix the exploration of a wayward youth’s worldview, and the modification of it should that worldview prove discouraging and depressing.

What a teen assumes about human existence at large affects daily mood and will, the head and the heart. It’s a warning to parents. Give your children a stable moral habitat. Teach them a meaningful past and a hopeful future. If they rebel against your vision, so be it, but you will make that rebellion itself meaningful by presenting to them something meaningful to oppose.

The depression and anxiety, in some cases at least (a not insignificant portion, I believe), are a sane response to bad influences and cynical perceptions. Youth culture is itself unhealthy, and Americans coming-of-age need to be cured of it.

Writing Will Become an Elite Skill

There won’t be many people who are able to write in about 20 years, computer expert Paul Graham has predicted

The use of Artificial intelligence (AI) for writing both at work and in school will result in the majority of people losing the skill in several short decades, Paul Graham, a computer scientist and author, has warned.

This will create a problem because writing means thinking, Graham, a veteran investor and cofounder of Y Combinator, a startup accelerator and venture capital firm, believes.

“The reason so many people have trouble writing is that it’s fundamentally difficult. To write well, you have to think clearly, and thinking clearly is hard,” he said in an essay posted on his website last week.

However, the development of technology has allowed people to outsource writing to AI. There’s no longer a need to actually learn how to write, or hire someone to do it for you, or even plagiarize, the English-American scientist wrote.

“I’m usually reluctant to make predictions about technology, but I feel fairly confident about this one: in a couple decades there won’t be many people who can write,” Graham said.

It’s common for skills to disappear as technologies replace them; after all, “there aren’t many blacksmiths left, and it doesn’t seem to be a problem,” he admitted. But people being unable to write is “bad,” he insisted.

“A world divided into writes and write-nots is more dangerous than it sounds. It will be a world of thinks and think-nots,” Graham believes.

It won’t be an unprecedented situation, he observed, referring to preindustrial times, when “most people’s jobs made them strong.”

“Now if you want to be strong, you work out. So there are still strong people, but only those who choose to be,” Graham said. In his view, it will be the same with writing. “There will still be smart people, but only those who choose to be.”

Some 86% of students use AI in their studies, according to a recent survey by the Digital Education Council. While 28% of them resort to technologies to paraphrase documents, 24% use AI to create first drafts, the study has found.

No, I Wouldn’t Want to Move to China

via Gândul “living hell forever, for the five imprisoned in China as of 2017. ”If you don’t have cleaned up the floor, you don’t get the extra food out of your money”

Translated from Romanian

Endless ordeal for the Romanian woman imprisoned in China since 2017. “If you didn’t wash the floor well, you no longer have the right to additional food from your money”

The ordeal over five imprisoned in China as of 2017. ”If you don't have cleaned up the floor, you don't get the extra food out of your money”
The food that the inmates receive in the prison where Alina is is insufficient, and an extra portion of food counts a lot


Claudia Voicu

Published on: 11/2/2024

In December, it will be 7 years since the Romanian Alina Apostol was imprisoned in a prison in China. For the 34-year-old, every day behind bars means a battle between hopelessness and hope. In addition to the harsh conditions in the penitentiary, very harsh sanctions are applied to inmates who do not perform a task impeccably.

  • The food is insufficient, and if they haven’t washed the floor well, they don’t get the extra portion of food, bought, anyway, with their own money.
  • The hard life in prison destroyed Alina’s health, and there is no question of adequate treatment in the penitentiary.

For 7 years, a Romanian woman has been living in the hell of a prison in China. Alina Apostol was convicted of credit card fraud and received a sentence of 13 years and 6 months in prison. Her family fights to get her out of communist hell and transferred to a prison in the country.

The girl’s parents sold the apartment she had in Bucharest, in order to pay the fine of 56,000 euros, established by the Chinese state. They hoped that once they managed to raise this money, their daughter would be brought into the country.

However, the Romanian authorities could not guarantee them that if the money was paid, Alina would be extradited. According to the Ministry of Justice, the payment of pecuniary sanctions does not represent a guarantee that the Chinese authorities will accept the transfer of the young woman to Romania.

Alina Apostol is waiting every day for news about her transfer home, but the negotiations at the level of the Romanian and Chinese authorities have proven extremely difficult.

Memorandum for the negotiation of a treaty between Romania and China

In the spring, the Ministry of Justice from Romania gave assurances that it is in correspondence with the Ministry of Justice from the People’s Republic of China, in order to expedite the resolution of this file.

In June, the Government adopted a memorandum approving the negotiation of a treaty between Romania and the People’s Republic of China regarding the transfer of convicted persons. The role of the document is to provide the opportunity for definitively convicted persons to serve their sentence in their social environment of origin, thus favoring their social reintegration.

The memorandum presents a draft treaty, developed by the Romanian side, regarding the transfer of convicted persons, which was to be transmitted to the Chinese side in order to formulate a counter draft.

For months, however, the girl’s parents have not received any information from either the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“If you didn’t do something, you don’t even get the 10 dollars anymore”

During this time, Alina lives an unimaginable nightmare every day . The conditions in the communist prison are very harsh and the punishments commensurate. People from Alina’s family spoke, for Gândul, about the punishments applied to prisoners in certain situations.

“They have the right to receive from home the sum of 86 dollars per month. I can spend half of the money on extra food and half on hygiene products. However, they do not receive the full amount, but as much as the prison management deems. I can only receive $30 or $10, for example,” said a source close to the Apostol family for Gândul.

However, the punishments can reach the situation where the prisoner does not receive even one dollar of the money sent by the family. Thus, in that month, he will no longer benefit from additional food or the possibility to purchase hygiene products.

“Since you didn’t do something, you don’t even get the 10 dollars anymore. If you didn’t wash the floor well, you no longer have the right to additional food from your money”, the person close to Alina’s family also told us.

“They stopped giving her food, because she bought books”

One day, Alina bought some books in English. The money she paid for the books was deducted from his $86.

“During that month, they stopped giving her food, because she bought books,” added our source.

All these punishments, but also the deprivation of food, mean both mental and physical torture. The already frail body of the Romanian began to gradually succumb under these pressures. The same sources say that the young woman has severe stomach pains, has become hypertensive and her teeth are breaking. Although the family expressed their willingness to pay for Alina to be taken to a civilian medical facility for treatment, this was not possible.

“The family made efforts to take her to a civil hospital, but they are not allowed. They were willing to pay for any treatment, but the young woman told them there was no chance”, added the close friend of the Apostol family.

The state of health of the young woman, has degraded so much in the 7 years she spent in the Chinese jail.

She ended up in jail for credit card fraude.

A graduate of the Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, the speaker of four languages, Alina Apostol in a prison located in the province of Fujian, in southeast China, on charges of fraud using her credit card.

Alina worked as a translator at a law firm run by three people: one Romanian, one Chinese and one Syrian. The young woman knew the Romanian from her country, he had made an offer to work for a tourist agency.

He her to be the manager of a travel agency, which he was to open in Beijing. The Romanian though didn’t taste the success of her dream together with her boss, but she ended up in jail.

A ticket from 56,000 €

The young woman is not, and has never admitted guilt. She was sentenced,, however, to 13 years and 6 months imprisonment, a fine of over 56,000 euros and ordered to pay 217,000 dollars, jointly with the other defendants.

The Romanian Court of Appeal has ordered the transfer of the Romanian to Romania and serve the equivalent of the sentence, according to the Romanian law, with a sentence of 9 years and 4 months in prison.

For what she supposedly did, the maximum penalty in Romania may not be more than 9 years and 4 months.. However, the procedure for the transfer seems to be going in circles, much to the dismay of the hopeless young woman.

Sent from my iPad

A Dignified Life, or Dehumanized Technocracy?

Authored by Jeremiah Hosea via Substack,

A dignified life, or dehumanized technocracy — which would you prefer for your children?

As you may have noticed, I do enjoy lists. I suppose they appeal to my sense of order. The following is a list of fundamental principles that were strangely, as if by hypnosis, abdicated during the Convid Scamdemic.

I hope you enjoy, as do I, the novelty (at least for this Substack) of presenting this particular list in countdown format!

8. Do Not Trust the Government — how anyone could not understand this principle by now is beyond me. You don’t need to refer to ancient history to reach this conclusion. You don’t even need to have read Machiavelli (although I highly recommend you do). Just look at recent history and you will be provided with numerous examples indicating that no private citizen should ever trust the government.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was even invoked by some of the poison pushers during Covid in patronizing efforts to assuage vaccine hesitancy. It was mentioned dismissively as though it were something that happened a million years ago and would never happen again. Yet every thinking person should take stock of this nightmarish event. It was medical torture that transpired over the course of 40 years and was presided over by the CDC. Yes — the same CDC.

Politically, since the turn of the new millennium, we have been treated to a continuous barrage of psyops and wars, wars and psyops. The dubious nature of the 2000 election, the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, the lies about WMDs that resulted in catastrophic war in Iraq, the total bailout of the banks in 2008 with not as much as a life-raft for the people, the Flint Michigan water crisis, the annihilation of Libya — we could go on and on and on in reciting examples of negligence, malfeasance and heinous actions carried out by our government irrespective of which political party held the presidency at the time. (I insist they are one party pretending to be two.)

How could one claim to have observed history and then fail to notice that virtually every major government project done in opposition to an enemy whether literal or abstract, from all the senseless catastrophic wars against regimes to the fruitless and counterproductive “War on Drugs” and then “War on Terror”, have been entirely negative in both nature and results?

Whenever the government announces (or doesn’t announce) it is embarking on some grand new endeavor, usually something catastrophic is underway.

During Covid, I didn’t just see people fail to be suspicious of a government that had thoroughly earned our distrust, I had the even more harrowing experience of witnessing people I had known previously to be “critical thinkers” suddenly devolve into people incapable of any critical thought whatsoever.

7. Don’t Trust Major Corporations, Especially Big Pharma aka Big Harma — what is a corporation? It is an instrument designed to maximize profit in the marketplace. In capitalism ruthlessness, relentlessness and an amoral approach are all considered admirable traits.

The willingness of a corporation to poison, pollute, injure or even kill is requisite to compete in the upper echelons of the market place. Major corporations do not have a track record of admitting fault or confessing guilt. They do not have the tendency of “taking things down a notch” for the sake of the environment, or human dignity or being reasonable. The ends absolutely justify the means and therefore, nothing is off-limits in the pursuit of maximizing profits. If there is collateral damage, or if a few fines need to be paid along the way — so be it. That will all be neatly filed and tucked away under the label of “the cost of doing business.” This description shouldn’t shock anyone — I am merely describing the spirit of capitalism and the spirit of corporatism.

Big industry from the military industrial complex to Big-Agra is thoroughly out of hand, but there’s something particularly disturbing about the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry as it pertains immediately to our health, the health of our children and the health of our families and communities. We should all be more than concerned that the oath stating, “first do no harm” has been jettisoned entirely.

Giving legal indemnity to corporations (especially ones with felony backgrounds) is a recipe for guaranteed disaster. There should be a law against making such laws. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which gives liability protection to vaccine manufacturers needs to be overturned immediately and put in its historical place as an anathema to the proper drafting and passing of laws.

6. The Right to Question — the right to question should be unquestionable. We claim to value education and up until recently intellectual curiosity was considered a good attribute. When Covid came along all the sudden “doing your own research” aka reading was suddenly being demonized. Who has ever heard of such a thing? And how can the people discouraging critical inquiry consider themselves to be the intelligent ones? It’s adjacent to the question, “when were the censors the good guys in history?”

Questioning is good. Robust dialogue is good. The notion of sterilizing mistakes or incorrect ideas out of discourse is totalitarian. In fact, clarifying and the correcting of mistakes usually offers a great opportunity for education and enlightenment. Moreover, to attempt to gain an understanding even to venture into the taxonomy of an unfamiliar field or discipline does not mean that the inquirers suddenly become professionals in that field — no reasonable person would suggest that. It is simply to have gained some understanding in a new area. This is a good process and not a negative one.

As my friend Ryan Cristian of Last American Vagabond ( TheLastAmericanVagabond.com ) says at the end of every program, “Question everything.”

5. Freedom to Associate — the government has no right whatsoever to prevent us from seeing our families or friends when we are not engaged in criminal actions and are not meeting to engage in criminal conspiracies. Lockdowns (which varied in severity from country to country and county to county) were a flagrant violation of our natural rights. Just as the government cannot protect us from any act of God — the notion that they can protect us from a respiratory ailment by restricting our movements is not only blatant overreach, it’s medically and scientifically without merit.

The falsehood of the “asymptomatic carrier” was the fraudulent basis for movement restricting policies. It should be accepted, however, that policy makers have no influence, no sway whatsoever in regard to the virome. Even if they did, a declared emergency should not be grounds for the suspension or removal of our rights. Yet what transpired during Covid and the lack of resistance from the public that went along with it, has set the stage for future abuses.

4. Freedom of Religion — I feel an enormous spiritual feeling but I do not identify with any particular religion or religious text. My beliefs, however, as well as the beliefs or non-beliefs of every individual are irrelevant — our country, like every free society, allows for freedom of religion. It is not the job of the mayor, governor, president or any appointed or elected official to arbitrarily suspend the fundamental right to worship and practice one’s religion.

It makes no sense to impose policies to protect a religious person from illness, when most religions are rooted in the concept of preparing the practitioner for death. For most religious people their religious practices are part of their well being. It is not up to power brokers to determine when devout persons can practice their religions or when congregations can congregate.

Allowing liquor stores to remain open while churches and mosques were ordered closed, highlights the perfectly baseless and arbitrary nature of lockdown policies. (I cringe when I use the word “allow” because We The People should have never “allowed” the state to have as much as an impression that they could impose any of this unfounded rubbish.)

Just prior to Covid, religious exemptions for vaccines required to attend school were overturned in New York and California. (Looking back, that was a red flag and helped set the stage for the bio security State that was about to emerge.) How is that possible? How can the government arbitrarily decide that their rule is more powerful than your religious belief and conviction to God Almighty? Who do they think they are? Religious exemptions should never be overturnable.

3. Haste Makes Waste — Haste makes waste is a truism. It is well known that it is better to be well prepared than rushed. It’s a principle also known as the 6 P’s — proper preparation prevents piss poor performance.

It’s better to be a well-rehearsed band than an under-rehearsed band. It’s better to be a well practiced basketball team (like the Spurs) than a team that hasn’t practiced enough. It’s better to be a well-prepared actor than an unprepared actor. It is better to have an experienced surgeon and not a medical student. Everyone knows that haste makes waste, yet somehow this axiomatic principle was disregarded in the case of “Operation Warp Speed.”

“Warp speed” implies mistakes. It implies lack of regulation and oversight. More than imply, it means — no long term safety data. It means rushed-to-market. It means “safe and effective” is inherently a lie because they didn’t have sufficient time to confirm its safety or effectiveness.

It’s mind numbing that not only did supposedly intelligent people insist that such a massive undertaking (Operation Warp Speed) could be executed without any noticeable reduction in quality, but then proceeded to aggressively insult and gaslight those who raised this most obvious concern.

Despite the notion that anyone who refused the experimental injections was doing so based on elaborate conspiracy theories, I spoke to many people who told me firsthand that their hesitancy or outright refusal was based on the simple fact that the whole thing was done too damn fast.

2. Body Sovereignty — sovereignty over one’s own body is the most fundamental of fundamental rights. It is the right from which all other rights emanate. If your body sovereignty is compromised, you are a compromised individual and you are not a free person. You may aspire to freedom, but you are not free.

Mandating Covid “vaccines” (products falsely marketed as such) was a violation of the Constitution†, the Nuremberg Code†† and first and foremost natural law. No person should be forced to eat anything, watch anything, participate in anything — least of all an invasive medical procedure — against their will. It’s incredibly sad that this has to be discussed or debated whatsoever in the United States or any modern society for that matter.

1. No means No — I have most certainly emphasized this in previous articles. I will exercise here the literary technique known as sufficient redundancy and reiterate that — No is the most important word in the dictionary. No is sacrosanct.

We teach our children, and rightfully so, that they always have the right to say No. If something doesn’t feel right — No. If you don’t feel safe — No. If you are being asked to compromise your dignity — No. The word — No — by itself, is a complete sentence. This principle, of always having the right to say No, does not have an expiration date. It’s not just for children. It is fundamental to human dignity.

It is an abomination, that the right to say No was violated across the whole of society. What a terrible example for our children, and if we don’t change things now — what a terrible inheritance for them as well.

UN Adopted The “Pact For The Future” – For A New “Global Order”

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

While everyone was distracted, the global elite got exactly what they wanted. The UN adopted the “Pact for the Future” on September 22nd, and the mainstream media in the western world almost entirely ignored what was happening. Instead, the headlines urged us to just keep focusing on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Sadly, the vast majority of the population has never ever heard about the “Pact for the Future”, and so there was very little public debate about whether or not we should be adopting a document which lays the foundation for a new “global order”. The text of the “Pact for the Future” is available online, but hardly anyone will ever read it and many of the most important provisions are buried toward the end of the 56 page document. Of course everyone should take the time to actually read this document, because our leaders just committed us to an extremely insidious global agenda that literally covers just about every conceivable area of human activity.

September 22nd, 2024 is a day that will go down in infamy.

Once the “Pact for the Future” was formally adopted, the following was posted on the official UN website

World leaders today adopted a Pact for the Future that includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations. This Pact is the culmination of an inclusive, years-long process to adapt international cooperation to the realities of today and the challenges of tomorrow. The most wide-ranging international agreement in many years, covering entirely new areas as well as issues on which agreement has not been possible in decades, the Pact aims above all to ensure that international institutions can deliver in the face of a world that has changed dramatically since they were created. As the Secretary-General has said, “we cannot create a future fit for our grandchildren with a system built by our grandparents.”

You would think that the “most wide-ranging international agreement in many years” would make headlines all over the planet.

But that didn’t happen.

The UN press release also boldly declares that the “Pact for the Future” will “lay the foundations” for a new “global order”…

“The Pact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” said the Secretary-General during his remarks at the opening of the Summit of the Future. The President of the General Assembly noted that the Pact would “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order – for all peoples and nations.”

The Pact covers a broad range of issues including peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance.

I don’t want to live in a new “global order” that includes “all peoples and all nations”.

I am sure that most of you feel the exact same way.

Another page on the official UN website tells us that “UN 2.0” is all about creating a “modern UN family”

Halfway through the 2030 Agenda, the world is not on track to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. It is not too late to change course, if we all rethink, refocus, and recharge. “UN 2.0” encapsulates the Secretary-General’s vision of a modern UN family, rejuvenated by a forward-thinking culture and empowered by cutting-edge skills for the twenty-first century – to turbocharge our support to people and planet.

We will strive towards this vision with a powerful fusion of innovation, data, digital, foresight and behavioural science skills and culture – a dynamic combination that we call the “Quintet of Change”. It is about evolution towards more agile, diverse, responsive, and impactful UN organizations.

That sounds so cozy, doesn’t it?

Who wouldn’t want to be a part of a “family”, right?

But the truth is that the agenda that they intend to impose on all of us will not be pleasant at all.

Over the years, much has been written about how insidious the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals” are.

Well, the UN is openly admitting that the “Pact for the Future” was specifically designed “to turbo-charge implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals”…

  • The entire Pact is designed to turbo-charge implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
  • The most detailed agreement ever at the United Nations on the need for reform of the international financial architecture so that it better represents and serves developing countries, including:
    • Giving developing countries a greater say in how decisions are taken at international financial institutions;
    • Mobilizing more financing from multilateral development banks to help developing countries meet their development needs;
    • Reviewing the sovereign debt architecture to ensure that developing countries can borrow sustainably to invest in their future, with the IMF, UN, G20 and other key players working together;
    • Strengthening the global financial safety net to protect the poorest in the event of financial and economic shocks, through concrete actions by the IMF and Member States;
    • and accelerating measures to address the challenge of climate change, including through delivering more finance to help countries adapt to climate change and invest in renewable energy.
  • Improving how we measure human progress, going beyond GDP to capturing human and planetary wellbeing and sustainability.
  • A commitment to consider ways to introduce a global minimum level of taxation on high-net-worth individuals.
  • On climate change, confirmation of the need to keep global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

In one way or another, all forms of human activity contribute to “climate change”.

And so they intend to strictly regulate all forms of human activity in order to meet their twisted goals.

The “Pact for the Future” also recognizes a “central role” for the UN and a “coordinated and multidimensional international response” whenever future “global shocks” arise

We recognize the need for a more coherent, cooperative, coordinated and multidimensional international response to complex global shocks and the central role of the United Nations in this regard. Complex global shocks are events that have severely disruptive and adverse consequences for a significant proportion of countries and the global population, and that lead to impacts across multiple sectors, requiring a multidimensional and whole-of-government, whole-of-society response.

The next time that there is a major global crisis, do you want the UN running the show and telling everyone what to do?

I tried to warn everyone about this.

I have written extensively about the “Pact for the Future”, but in the end only a very small sliver of the population got fired up about it.

Now the global elite have achieved their goal, and the opposition that they encountered was barely perceptible.


Michael’s new book entitled “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Is Russian PM’s Office Behind a New Form of Religious Inquisition?

via RT

Ed. Note: Are 200 Hundred years of enlightenment and humanity’s consciousness’ emancipation about to be rolled back to the so-called Medieval Man?

Are we now faced with the choice between religion, as the lowest common denominator mind of the masses vs scientific pursuit of knowledge by the enlightened minds of humanity? Is this return to “traditional values” promoted by Russia a backdoor imposition of obscurantism, ignorance, shamanism, bigotry and the dictatorship of the masses on the society at large? Is the same goal being pursued in the West through the generational dumbing-down of our education and culture?

Are we seeing the new trend that imposes limitations on free-thinking, freedom of speach, mostly of freedom to think? Are we prepared for a new Dark Age when Thought Police tells us what to think, what to believe, what to do, how to live? Is this a sign of the new slave-based society in different shades of color?

If you notice, many soldiers hold prayer meetings, state openly their faith during operations, and a special military cathedral has been built. Putin specified that no one can serve in the Siloviki unless they are fully confessed and sincere Orthodox.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution should be excluded from the standard school curriculum in Russia because it conflicts with religious education, former prime minister of the Muslim-majority Chechen Republic, Muslim Khuchiev, has said.

Khuchiev, who now serves as an aide to Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, railed against one of the most influential scientific concepts in human history while speaking on Thursday at a meeting of the All-Russia Committee of Parents.

“Everyone knows that this is a false theory, it goes against religion,” Khuchiev argued, describing it as “the first step in the spiritual decay of children.”

Khuchiev suggested “simply removing it” from the curriculum. Darwin’s theory “is not true, it goes against religious education, all religions have recognized that,” he stated, claiming that this essentially settles the debate on whether or not it should be removed from textbooks.

Optional study of various theories, including evolution, could continue, he said, but stressed that he was opposed to such ideas being taught to children as “the ultimate truth.” Khuchiev noted that this was his personal view and not the official position of the Russian government.

While Russian government officials have yet to respond to the proposal, the initiative was met with a backlash from Russian MP Anatoly Wasserman, a member of the parliamentary educational committee. Wasserman is widely viewed as something of an eccentric intellectual after winning numerous TV quiz shows.

He argued that efforts to understand religion are hampered by the fact that interpretations in the holy scriptures do not always reflect reality and align with science. “A person demanding some contemporary ideas to be abolished simply because they do not conform to religion, proves that his own understanding of religion is quite limited,” Wasserman claimed.

The MP also noted that while Darwin’s theory in its original form is generally considered outdated, his errors stemmed from being a pioneer in his field.

First presented in 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution states that biological evolution occurs through the process of natural selection over thousands of generations. The British naturalist also proposed that humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, earning Darwin fierce criticism from the clergy for contradicting biblical interpretations of divine human origins.

The current scientific consensus is that Darwin’s work, while groundbreaking, contained misconceptions and limitations that were corrected by later researchers, notably Gregor Mendel, who explained how traits are inherited through genes.

Americans To Be Fingerprinted And Registered To Enter EU From November

by Vinicius Costa via Current News

For years, Americans have been allowed to enter (most of) Europe unrestricted, without overly strict checks or entry permits required

In some airports, like Charles de Gaulle in Paris and Fiumicino in Rome, they are even allowed to use eGates upon landing, like they’re Europeans.

Starting from November, however, they will be faced with additional bureaucracy.

Following years of deliberation, the Brussels-led bloc is finally reforming its border policy to meet the challenges of modern times, from security threats to irregular migration.

U.S. passport holders will not be exempt from further scrutiny when flying into the zone.

Starting from November 2024, if you’re an American, you should expect to get fingerprinted and registered upon crossing the European border, and there’s just no getting around it:

Why Is Europe Tightening Border Checks For Americans?

As confirmed by Ylva Johansson, the European Union Commissioner, the much-delayed Entry-Exit System (EES) of the European Union will launch on November 10 in an attempt to modernize the continent’s borders and strengthen security.

The EES is hardly a novelty–we’ve been reporting on it extensively over the past three years–but this is the first time the EU commissioner herself has confirmed a start date following multiplesetbacks.

In case you’re still wondering what the EES entails, it refers to a biometric system that will use a traveler’s digital photograph, personal information and fingerprints to control their border movements, as well as their length of stay.

In general, Americans can only remain in the continent, or more specifically, the 29-country Schengen Area for 90 days out of any 180-day period; this means any time spent in anyparticipating country counts towards the established limit.

For example, if you’re traveling long term and staying in Italy for a whole month, savoring your way through the southern Puglia region and going on a museum haul across the cultural hotspots of Florence and Rome, you’ll then only have 60 days to travel around 28 other Schengen countries.

As you should know by now if you’ve ever flown across the pond, European border officials continue to stamp passports of foreign arrivals, and those timed entries are usually their only indication as to how long an individual has remained in the Schengen territories.

From November onward, everything changes, and here’s how:

What Changes From November 10?

When that happens, it will be goodbye to passport stamping, hello to digital checks for all passengers from outside the EU‘, noted Johansson.

In effect, Americans––as well as all other non-European travelers––will be required to have their biometric data registered landing in Europe starting from November 10, with the information being stored in a database for three years.

This seems to coincide with the validity period for an ETIAS––Europe’s soon-to-be-launched travel permit also applying to Americans––so it appears re-registration will be enforced simultaneously following every ETIAS renewal.

In simpler terms, it might be that, if you’re a frequent traveler to Europe, this means applying for an ETIAS, and registering your data into the EES every three years, or earlier if you’ve recently renewed your passport.

Regarding ETIAS, the much-debated, controversial entry authorization system is set to be introduced from 2025 only, so you don’t need to worry about that specifically if you’re traveling in the Old Continent this upcoming winter.

Once the ETIAS is fully operational, you will not be allowed to board Europe-bound flights unless you’ve been pre-screened and submitted an application online in advance.

This is in fact less complicated than it sounds, as every ETIAS application is processed online, and the application process itself takes no longer than some minutes, with most travelers, particularly low-risk ones like Americans, being expected to get instant approval.

You will have to pay a €7 fee, though, and remember, holding a valid ETIAS does not guarantee entry into Europe: that’s still up for border officers to decide, and they will definitely take into account your profile as a traveler, and whether you have a history of respecting the 90 day rule or not.

That’s where the EES comes into play.

One thing is for certain: travelers will not need to undergo the registration process every time they enter and leave the bloc.

Long story short, out with passport stamps, in with fingerprinting and digital checks.

At every single airport, every single harbor and every single road into Europe, we will have digital border controls––all connected, all switched on at the very same time‘, concluded the EU Commissioner.

See more here traveloffpath.com

The New Russia: You Will Be Tagged… And You Will Love It

Authored by Riley Waggaman via Off-Guardian.org,

As expected, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum was the hottest anti-globalist multipolar traditional RETVRN values conference of 2024 – possibly of all-time.

The unipolar world suffered non-stop humiliations during this mind-blowing freedom event. For example, Moscow Region governor Andrei Vorobyov made an incredible BRICS announcement during a titillating panel discussion about the joys of biometrics, causing the dollar to lose 50% of its value against the gold-backed ruble:

Biometrics is a tool that gives people better quality and more convenience in certain procedures, keeping them neat and tidy. You don’t need any papers or passports—that will all be in the past. Resisting it, in my opinion, is absurd.

The governor of Russia’s second-most-populated region, explaining the inevitable convenience of biometrics—which will replace archaic “papers” and “passports”.

Nothing is being hidden. They’re speaking very frankly. It’s all out there, in the open.

There is even a helpful “recap” of the panel discussion published by SPIEF. Behold the “highlights”:

source: https://forumspb.com/

“I am for biometrics … Everything I do is based on biometrics, everything is based on fingerprints, because I’m took lazy to carry cards with me and it’s much more convenient to just [login/pass/go] through my face,” pontificated an expert panelist.

Was the BRICS Multipolar Happy Order incapable of finding a single panelist who had reservations about turning eyeballs into IDs? Igor Ashmanov, a member of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, had to shout his objections from the bleachers because they wouldn’t let his dirty anti-biometric ideas onstage:

source: Telegram

Friend of the blog Simplicius posted a Twitter-summary of Igor’s very rude unipolar objections to biometrics:

This guy sounds like Edward Slavsquat. Great minds think alike.

“Yes, but Russians like biometrics, the most convenient of all forms for identification, which will replace ‘papers’ and ‘passports’,” you might be saying to yourself for some weird and tragic reason.

Take the wheel, nakanune.ru:

People in Russia are narrow-minded and have not yet realized how beautiful, convenient and progressive biometrics are. Therefore, whether they want it or not, the authorities will introduce it wherever possible. Approximately the same reasoning (without these words, but with this meaning) was heard at SPIEF in the section devoted to biometrics. Nakanune.RU provides characteristic statements about the attitude of business towards people.
At first, the presenter of the Russia 24 channel, Maria Kudryavtseva, advertised biometrics, showing how she enters the Unified Biometric System using her face and even the greeting “Hello, Maria!” appears there, which she enthusiastically shows to the audience.
At the same time, there was a feeling of a white gentleman showing “digital beads” to the local natives. And the whole “discussion” came down to one thing—intrusive advertising. It is characteristic that the governor of the Moscow region Andrei Vorobyov, who is a public servant, but showed himself to be a business lobbyist, was also involved in this.
As with artificial intelligence in healthcare , the panel included only proponents of biometrics. Those who might object were simply not invited. Those present were mainly engaged in advertising. Old people do not understand the digital world, but young people were already born with a gadget in their hand, they are very flexible, progressive, digital. They understand how convenient, cool and fast it is. In general, the conversation became very revealing in its vacuity and disregard for the position of citizens.
The first question to the speakers was provocative: is society ready to use biometrics? That is, don’t people want it, does the country need it, not what it will give, not what the risks are—but is society ready, as if the issue has been fundamentally resolved. Which is obscene. Let us recall that according to a 2023 survey , a third of Russians have a positive attitude towards taking biometrics, but almost half are opposed—48%.
[…]
Vorobiev spoke as if he had gone back in time a hundred years ago and was telling backward people of the past about the wonders of the technology of the future. Here are just a few quotes.
“You don’t need a paper or a passport, all this will be a thing of the past, it’s absurd to resist it. We all already use biometrics, including children at school… It’s convenient, you don’t need to twist anything, you just look and that’s it,” said Vorobiev. […]
It is characteristic that one of the main experts in the field of artificial intelligence in the country, a member of the Human Rights Council, Igor Ashmanov, was not invited to the section, who was forced to make remarks from the audience several times, and the section participants politely drew attention to the fact that someone might disagree. So, when Lebedev said that all people are for biometrics, he objected that this was not true. And when they started talking about different points of view, he very briefly but accurately described what was happening.
“You haven’t invited anyone to the presidium, you’re all blowing the same tune! As a member of the Presidential Human Rights Council, I hear completely obscene advertising, and nothing more!” said Ashmanov.

What’s wrong with this freak?