Saving the planet by forbidding Rice?

World Bank president Ajay Banga: 

“Methane is eighty times more dangerous than carbon dioxide.

We’re focusing on rice cultivation, animal and dairy farming, and waste management to cut ten million tonnes of methane.“

via ZeroHedge

The development of totalitarian governments always coincides with sweeping efforts to socially engineer the population to adhere to less rebellious behaviors.  Specific groups that present a threat to the regime are usually identified and targeted with propaganda or indoctrination.  In tandem, the rest of the population is also conditioned to fear those groups and treat them with suspicion.  In this way the establishment elites mold the more submissive public into a shield that protects them from the revolutionaries that might dethrone them.

But what happens when the social engineers want to create tyranny on a global scale?  The list of possible rebels grows exponentially larger and effort to control them all or demonize them all becomes far more complex.  How can the elites simplify their agenda and suppress the public with more efficiency?  

The only answer is to attack and cripple the largest subset of the population that is most likely to give them problems in the future.  Which monolithic group is more likely to fight back against the system?  Obviously, the answer is masculine men.  Therefore, this new global regime seeks to undermine and sabotage men, labeling masculinity an existential danger to society, like nuclear weapons or global warming.

In recent years Australia has been at the forefront of many authoritarian experiments.  Their egregious violations of citizen liberties during the covid hysteria were astonishing.  Perhaps even worse has been the complete takeover of DEI within the Australian government along with the infestation of radical feminism.  Australia, it would seem, is all but lost to the nightmare of the woke religion.  

That’s why it’s not at all surprising that the the Premier of the Australian state of Victoria has created a new ministry tasked with the purpose of changing and perhaps even controlling men.

Jacinta Allan announced this month that state MP Tim Richardson would serve as the inaugural Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change – the first position of its kind in the country.  The appointment was in response to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese calling gender-based violence a “national crisis” and promising greater government action.  First, Australia blamed guns for violent crime; now they are blaming men in general.

The mainstream media claims the new effort is in response to a ‘crisis of sexist violence against women.’  The problem is that the data doesn’t support this.  Hospital records for assaults and homicides in Australia show a steady decline among men and women in the past two decades, and they also show that men are much more likely to face victimization compared to women.

Of course, it all depends on how the government defines “sexist violence.”  Does this include contrary ideas or mean words?  Let’s not forget that for progressives words can be the same as violence.  Interestingly, Tim Richardson suggested that his role will focus primarily on the internet and how it “affects men’s attitudes towards women.”  In other words, the government likely wants to control speech on the web to prevent “toxic” male behaviors.

It is not the job of “all men” to take responsibility of the crimes of a tiny handful.  It is not the job of government to mold the behavior of the citizenry.    

All western nations have been involved in the campaign to demonize men in one form or another, utilizing third-wave feminism as a vehicle.  Australia is simply acting as a beta test for similar programs to be implemented in other countries. 

The use of feminism is necessary to fabricate a rationale; they can’t merely attack men for being men or attack men for being potentially rebellious against authoritarian government, there has to be a “victim” that needs protection so that the attack on men appears justified.  Those who defend masculinity are thus by extension accused of threatening the safety of women.

In other words, the totalitarians become the “good guys” because they supposedly have women’s best interests at heart.  And, since men are everywhere, the totalitarians need to be everywhere too so they can keep that terrifying masculinity at bay.  The global regime suddenly becomes sacrosanct; a precious defender of women’s safety.   

Of course, none of this is true.  The establishment’s obsession with the cult of transsexualism is proof of that.  Their insistence that women are nothing more than a “social construct” that can be replaced by mentally ill men in wigs and makeup leaves little doubt that femininity is being targeted nearly as much as masculinity.  But the hyperfocus on men is logical if one accepts the possibility that the goal of these programs is to weaken western societies to the point that they are easy to conquer.  In this way, the war on masculine men makes perfect sense.

by Frederica di Sario via Politico

The politically touchy recommendation is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers in order to cut climate-harming pollution. | Guillaume Souvant/AFP via Getty Images

Cows and milk are out, chicken and broccoli are in — if the World Bank has its way, that is.

In a new paper, the international financial lender suggests repurposing the billions rich countries spend to boost CO2-rich products like red meat and dairy for more climate-friendly options like poultry, fruits and vegetables. It’s one of the most cost-effective ways to save the planet from climate change, the bank argues.

The politically touchy recommendation — sure to make certain conservatives and European countries apoplectic — is one of several suggestions the World Bank offers to cut climate-harming pollution from the agricultural and food sectors, which are responsible for nearly a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have to stop destroying the planet as we feed ourselves,” Julian Lampietti, the World Bank’s manager for global engagement in the bank’s agriculture and food global practice, told POLITICO.

The paper comes at a diplomatically strategic moment, as countries signed on to the Paris Agreement — the global pact calling to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — prepare to update their climate plans by late 2025.

With the world needing to accelerate its emissions cuts to keep the Paris deal’s goals alive, the World Bank wants officials to pay more attention to the agriculture and food industries, which the bank says have long been neglected and underfunded.

According to the report, countries must funnel $260 billion each year into those sectors to get serious about erasing their emissions by 2050 — a common goal for developed economies. That’s 18 times more than countries currently invest.

Governments can partly plug the gap by reorienting subsidies for red meat and dairy products toward lower-carbon alternatives, the World Bank says. The switch is one of the most cost-effective ways for wealthy countries — estimated to generate roughly 20 percent of the world’s agri-food emissions — to reduce demand for highly polluting food, it argues.

The result, it adds, would essentially price climate impact into food costs.

“The full cost pricing of animal-sourced food to reflect its true planetary costs would make low-emission food options more competitive,” the report says, stressing that shifting to plant-based diets could save twice as much planet-warming gases as other methods.

Demand for meat and dairy products comprises almost 60 percent of agri-food emissions.

Lampietti warned against too much focus on “what you shouldn’t do,” encouraging more attention “on what you should do.” Food is an “intensely personal choice,” he added, saying he fears that what should be a data-based debate may be turned into a culture war battle.

“The big worry here is that people start using this as a political football,” he said.

via The Telegraph
Britain’s NHS Declares Sex is Biological Fact in Landmark Shift Against ‘Gender Ideology’ 

Changes to the health service’s written constitution proposed by ministers will for the first time ban trans women from female-only wards.

Campaigners for women’s rights welcomed the significant shift to the constitution, which follows accusations that the health service had been captured by woke “gender ideology.”

The move was a “return to common sense and an overdue recognition that women’s wellbeing and safety matter,” women’s rights campaigners added.

Ed. Note: We are posting this in order to present the insanity that has spread among the European elites. While denying the legitimacy of Russian elections, despite the overwhelming popular support for President Putin, the brutal Western police crack down across the board on any peaceful voices denouncing the genocide by Israel is hailed as an exercise in “democracy”.

via Intellinews

In a sting blow for the Kremlin, the European Parliament ruled that Russia’s presidential election was illegitimate and blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin personally for the “murder” of opposition activist Alexei Navalny, who died in jail in February.

The European Parliament passed a resolution urging EU member states and the international community to disregard the legitimacy of recent Russian elections and concluded that the presidential elections held on March 15 -17, including the poll in occupied Ukrainian territories, were neither free nor fair. Of the 522 members of parliament, 493 voted for the motion to condemn Russia.

“…the so-called presidential election held by Russia from 15 to 17 March 2024 was conducted without any political competition, in a severely restricted environment of systemic and grave repression and during the Russian Federation’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine,” the resolution reads. “Russia’s authoritarian regime has used such increasingly fraudulent and farcical so-called elections for decades to provide a semblance of democracy in order to continue to concentrate all power in the hands of Vladimir Putin.”

The resolution also “deplores the fact that the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, chose to break ranks with the EU and congratulate Vladimir Putin on his sham re-election.”

The resolution held Putin personally responsible for Navalny’s death in questionable circumstances on February 16 in the Polar Wolf prison camp on Russia’s Far North coast.

“…Alexei Navalny, the most powerful figure in the democratic opposition and the 2021 laureate of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, was murdered in a Siberian penal colony on 16 February 2024, just weeks before the so-called presidential election,” the resolution says.

Navalny had been serving what the European Parliament called “an unfounded, politically motivated prison sentence” and went on to explicitly say, “the full responsibility for his murder lies with the Russian state and with its president Vladimir Putin in particular.”

The resolution also urged EU states to support Russian civil society organisations, and issue humanitarian visas to Russians who face persecution for their opposition to Putin.

While the European Parliament’s resolution carries no legal weight or effects, it is a blow for the Kremlin and undermines Putin’s legitimacy as president.

Russian oligarch turned dissident, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, called the decision a “turning point” in Europe’s relation with Russia.

“While he may hate to admit it, Putin needs foreign approval, particularly from the West, because despite all of his best efforts, Russians still place a lot of stock in Western recognition,” Khodorkovsky said in a post on social media.

The European Parliament has called for sanctions against individuals involved in orchestrating the elections in the four regions annexed by Russia last year and recommended that EU countries severely limit their relations with the Russian government, including negotiations related to prisoner exchanges, the repatriation of deported children to Ukraine, and the release of political prisoners.

One of the theories accounting for Navalny’s death is that the US proposed the opposition leader be included in a prisoner swap deal for the US citizens Evan Gerkovich and Paul Whelan for FSB-linked hit man Vadim Krasikov, who is serving a life sentence for murder in Germany. Navalny was murdered to remove his name from the table in any potential prisoner swap, according to some commentators.

In parallel to the European Parliament’s resolution, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) also declared Putin and his government illegitimate on April 17. PACE urged the Council of Europe and EU member states to cease all contact with Putin’s “criminal regime,” echoing the European Parliament’s call for isolation and sanctions.

The European Commission (EC) is currently debating a fourteenth sanctions package that intends to tighten the extreme sanctions regime imposed on Russia that is expected to be adopted in the coming months.

A recent poll in Ukraine found that 85% of Ukrainians view Putin as illegitimate, highlighting the widespread condemnation of the Russian invasion just over two years ago. However, in Russia, while the decision to invade Ukraine is widely condemned, the overwhelming majority of Russians have backed the war now it has started. A recent poll found that patriotism is at an all-time high and 84% of Russians trust Putin, according to the independent pollster, the Levada Center.

by Bob Unruh via wnd

Americans can thank Bill Gates and his foundation for school lessons that teach that there is “white supremacy” in mathematics lessons across the country, that those create “systemic barriers to equity for black, Latinx and multilingual students,” and that the solution is, in fact, “antiracist math education.”

And for that, teachers must examine “the ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy culture in their own classrooms.”

A report from the Washington Examiner notes the lessons come from a plan called “A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction,” which is promoted online.

“The Pathway offers guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit ‘strides’ serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism,” the programming intended for children explains.

And the Examiners notes that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation “is the only donor listed on a website for a group dedicated to eliminating racism from the nation’s math curriculum, which would be accomplished, in part, by eliminating the need for students to show their work after solving a math problem.”

Condemned in the lessons are the “focus” that insists students get the “right” answer and requiring students to “show their work.”

“White supremacy culture infiltrates math classrooms in everyday teacher actions,” the lessons charge. “Coupled with the beliefs that underlie these actions, they perpetuate educational harm on black, Latinx, and multilingual students, denying them full access to the world of mathematics.”

The lessons inform faculty, “Antiracist math educators deconstruct the ways they have been taught math to learn and teach math differently.”

Subtopics include “ethnomathematics,” “thoughtful scaffolding” and having students “reclaim their mathematical ancestry.”

Also important, it explains, is using math as “resistance,” and that includes teaching “students of color” to “disrupt the disproportionate push-out of people of color” in math and STEM fields.

via ZeroHedge

It’s a problem in the western world that is rarely discussed in the media beyond puff-piece articles and glancing polls that avoid connecting the dots. The precipitous decline of dating, committed relationships and marriage along with a flatline in population in the past couple decades in the US is treated as a novelty issue rather than the threat to the stability of civilization that it actually is. History shows that without the traditional family structure, numerous ugly societal consequences follow.

One could argue, though, that the situation is far worse than that. We may be heading into a future where families become a novelty, and many argue that the root cause is feminism and the hyperinflated delusions of progressive women.

In order to understand the problem we have to look at the stats.

More than 50% of American women are still childless by age 30. By age 35 fertility goes into steep decline with women having a 15% chance of becoming pregnant, and a less than 5% chance of motherhood at age 40. Meaning, the best window of opportunity for women to find a compatible partner and build a family is in their 20s.

Feminists argue, though, that this is the time in a woman’s life when they should be building a career and having fun. Family life, they say, is an artificial prison “created by the patriarchy” in order to oppress the fairer sex. Corporate media and Hollywood entertainment often reinforce this narrative and encourage unrealistic life goals.

The propaganda has generated what many refer to as the “Female Happiness Paradox.” Surveys show that increased power, job access and responsibility for women in society since the 1970s has also led to a diametrically opposed decline in overall happiness for those same women. The correlation suggests the exact opposite of what feminism originally promised and that the ideology has been a net negative.

Though some will argue that a general decline in economic conditions is the real cause, surveys show that women have suffered a far more pronounced drop in happiness compared to men. Meaning, men were already acclimated to the struggles of the workaday world and their roles as providers and protectors. Women were happy until they joined men in the trenches.

For men, the reaction has been to back away from the dating scene and the double standards involved. Over 63% of men under the age of 30 are now single; that’s up from 51% in 2019. The majority of single men say this is by choice and that they are seeking to avoid relationships altogether. Why? The consensus appears to be that modern western women cost too much money and cause too much trouble.

Fear of failed marriage is one aspect that has the younger generation of men on edge, with family courts still largely in favor of women in divorce settlements and child custody. This is one reason why marriage rates have declined by 60% since the 1970s. However, the obstacles go well beyond divorce and into a new culture of female entitlement.

The word on the street is “Hoeflation”: The dramatic increase in cost for men today to maintain a relationship with a woman while the quality of women continues to go down. That is to say, it is an increase in female expectations vs what they bring to the table in a relationship.

In other words, women of the past used to have something to offer beyond sexual companionship, from greater femininity, greater potential for motherhood, less combativeness and narcissism, as well as a superior ability to raise children and maintain a home. Such traits are highly attractive to men even after 60 years of widespread feminism, but are seen as non-existent among women under 30 in 2023.

It should be noted that “Hoeflation” seems to be directly linked to progressive influences, and not all women fall into this category. Unfortunately, around 71% of young women identify with progressive beliefs, as opposed to young men who are only 53% progressive. It should also be noted that progressive today means something a lot different from what it meant in the 1990s (progressive now means woke, or extreme leftist cultism).

A majority of American women have cast off their traditional roles in exchange for modern feminist ideals while still expecting traditional roles for men. Dating, younger men complain, is now more like a job interview with scrutiny of their finances a primary topic. Beyond that, the online meat market isn’t helping. Dating app research shows that 80% of western women are all chasing after the top 20% or less of men, with earning potential being the biggest factor next to physical attractiveness.

A recent viral trend on social media in which women made a list of restaurants that they would refuse to eat at on a first date exemplifies the concept of “Hoeflation.”

The Cheesecake Factory in particular was consistently mentioned as a “red flag” for “cheap men.” Spending of up to $200 or more was presented as a bare minimum for a first date, and only 26% of women indicated they are willing to split the tab. First dates used to be an opportunity for men and women to decide if there is a chance for compatibility, now progressive women expect grand gestures of wealth and ambition. Like Valentine’s Day, but everyday.

What feminism has done, essentially, is hyper-exaggerate women’s natural inclination to seek out more productive men, while also hyper-exaggerating their sense of self worth and making them insufferable.

Women who have nothing to offer have been inculcated with delusions of grandeur. So much so that the question “what do you bring to the table” is sneered at – “I am the table” is their response. There is no cure for this level of narcissism except hitting rock bottom, which is an outcome that western women (and society as a whole) are swiftly approaching.

The problem is not as historically entrenched as one might think, with Gen Z being the biggest deviation with the worst prospects for relationships among all other generations. Feminism has been an ever present agenda but Gen Z has been hit with the brunt of the fallout in the span of a single decade. We can hope, however, that as quickly as the cancer of feminism has spread, it might recede. If the greatest damage was done within one or two generations, maybe a cure can be applied in the next generation.

Authored by Tony Edwards via DailySceptic.org,

Will you sign up to Dry January this year? If you do, you won’t be alone.

According to its organizers, you’ll join a staggering nine million drinkers who are expected to don the hair shirt of for a whole month.

Why would you do it?

To prove to yourself you’re not an alcoholic, to virtue signal or to improve your health ? 0ne or more of those certainly.

Dry January was first invented 10 years ago by a U.K. charity called Alcohol Concern with a single purpose: “To reset after a month or two of holiday festivities (such as) office parties, fun nights out, and boozy nights in.”

Fair enough, perhaps, after an over-indulgent Christmas. But the goalposts have since been uprooted and replanted throughout the whole year. In February 2023, the charity (now rebranded as Alcohol Change) launched another abstinence drive: “Sober Spring – your three month break from alcohol, your chance to break habits, start new ones and experience life alcohol-free.” Hmm… What with the invention of two more monthly clones, Sober October and Sober September, there soon won’t be many more days in the year for drinkers to quaff a bevy or two without looking over their shoulders to see who’s eyeing them accusingly.

It’s beginning to look like a return of the Temperance Movement by stealth. In the 19th Century, drinkers were exhorted to “sign the pledge”, undertaking to renounce alcohol for life. Today, that pledge has now morphed into an app on your phone, enabling Alcohol Change to monitor your behaviour, and remotely shame you if you succumb to the temptations of the demon drink. In the 1800s, the Temperance Movement was all about preventing domestic violence; today it’s about preventing ill-health.

I’m a medical research journalist and I first got interested in this issue after stumbling across the fact that although booze “contains” lots of calories, it does not make you put on weight. Clinical trials on human volunteers, as well as experiments on rats and mice, have demonstrated this surprising fact conclusively. The evidence is clear: if you replace food calories with alcohol calories, you will lose weight. And yet the medical authorities have repeatedly told us that drinking causes weight gain, one of many health reasons to give up drinking.

That mismatch between medical advice and medical evidence set me on the path of seeing what else ‘they’ were misleading us about. That led to a deep dive into the published medical research and my discovery that, although the health authorities were routinely bombarding us with anti-alcohol rhetoric, there are astonishing health benefits from drinking.

Seriously? Can alcohol really be good for your health?

Yes.

In addition to the weight issue, the evidence shows that sensible drinkers have less heart disease, less diabetes, less dementia and often even less cancer than teetotallers. Those, plus a myriad of other health benefits, have the predictable upshot that moderate drinkers live longer and healthier lives than non-drinkers. Those discoveries were the meat of my 2013 book on the subject: The Good News About Booze, a deliberately populist title intended to disguise the fact that the book was a serious in-depth enquiry based on literally hundreds of references to evidence published in international medical journals.

After that, I thought I had finished with alcohol as a topic, but I recently had a rethink.

In the last seven years, without any evidence to support the clampdown, the medical authorities have begun turning the screws on drinkers. Again, it all started in Britain where in 2016 the existing alcohol guidelines were slashed in half, setting the upper safe limit at two units a day. What’s two units? Less than a pint of beer, a small glass of wine, or a shot of whisky – so almost a maiden aunt’s level of intake. Nevertheless, we were warned that exceeding even that very low level would harm our health. In fact, England’s then Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies, went further, trumpeting that the latest research showed that “there is no safe level of alcohol intake”. Really? How come?

It turned out she had commissioned a survey of the existing research data from Sheffield University– a questionable source, as Sheffield is a bit-part player on the international alcohol research stage. In any case, we now know, thanks to journalist Chris Snowdon’s Freedom of Information ferreting, that Sheffield initially reported quite a lot of Good News about alcohol and health. However, that displeased the CMO who ordered the university to downplay alcohol’s health benefits and ramp up its hazards. The final Sheffield report, which incidentally was never formally published in a peer-reviewed journal, then became the justification for the new British guidelines…. which were, to put it mildly, based on dubious science.

Nevertheless, the 2016 British anti-alcohol initiative soon spread around the world, with many countries also reducing their guideline levels, sometimes to ridiculously low levels. For example, Holland, despite its liberal laws about marijuana smoking, now reckons that drinking more than half a bottle of lager a day will shorten your life. And even the French, who until a decade ago had no official guidelines at all, have now decided that drinking more than the quarter litre carafe of wine which every Frenchman has with his lunch, is a health hazard.

I was puzzled. I was pretty sure the health evidence about drinking hadn’t significantly changed since my 2013 book, but I decided to check. Another deep dive into the evidence did indeed reveal some apparently worrying findings. There was a major Cambridge University research paper with a sample size of over half a million people which said it had disproved the idea that drinking had any health benefits whatsoever. An even bigger study conducted in China claimed the same. A third said that drinking wine is as dangerous as smoking.

However, on examination, none of these stacked up. The Cambridge claim was straightforward misinformation: its study had in fact found health benefits from drinking, but had buried the positive findings in the depths of a voluminous appendix. The Chinese study was of questionable value, as it’s well known that Orientals genetically respond to alcohol very differently from Europeans. As for the ‘wine is as harmful as tobacco’ study, it offered not a scrap of evidence for the claim.

By contrast, my deep dive into the research database did reveal some new, very positive information about alcohol and health – in particular, the benefits of wine. It also meant I could assess the value of the new entrants in the wine arena since my 2013 book: organic/biodynamic and alcohol-free wines. I was intrigued to discover what extra health punch they each might provide; the answers greatly surprised me.

The result is a new book The Very Good News about Wine, which came out this month. Citing over three hundred studies published from the 1970s to the present, the book is a serious challenge to the anti-alcohol propaganda increasingly dominating the media – largely driven by a nefarious alliance of the medical authorities, a small coterie of vocal anti-alcohol activists and Alcohol Change.

My hope is that people will use the book as an authoritative resource when they next hear another rent-a-pundit trotting out the old saw that wine’s supposed health benefits are “an old wives’ tale” (quote, Sally Davies). 50 years of solid medical data are a rare example of where the science is settled: it cannot easily be overturned by anything you might read in your daily newspaper, trumpeting the latest shock-horror discovery that a glass of wine will tip you into an early grave.

So will you sign up to Dry January?

Personally I won’t, as the medical evidence is overwhelming that drinking a few glasses of wine with an evening meal is good for one’s health. You may have different motives, of which proving to yourself you’re not an alcoholic seems superficially attractive. On the other hand, you wouldn’t want to give up brushing your teeth for a month, or stop your daily exercise routines – two addictions you should embrace, as they’re obviously health-promoting. In principle, moderate wine drinking is no different.

Of course, it’s ‘your body, your choice’ whether you take the January pledge or not. However, Alcohol Change probably won’t give a toss one way or the other. The organisation’s latest accounts show that their dry months marketing ploys have already netted them over £12 million in assets.

Temperance propaganda is clearly Very Good News for them too.

The Very Good News About Wine by Tony Edwards is available on Amazon priced £10.99.

by Eric Striker via Unz Review

American Oligarchs” will be a recurring National Justice series highlighting 21st century robber barons and how they use their power over our country.

The goal is to spotlight America’s crisis of representative democracy and the corruption foisted upon our society by capitalist thugs and their agents.

It seems like we woke up one day to find that, out of nowhere, distinguishing between male and female has become illegal. In defiance of intuition, common sense and 3rd grade biology, a number of liberal plutocracies like Canada and the United Kingdom have legislated to force-feed their subjects the doctrine of transgenderism, which contrary to the idea that it is an individual choice, is always coupled with mandates that ordinary citizens acknowledge the delusions of wealthy narcissists and perverts.

In the United States, using the incorrect pronoun or expressing suspicion that transgender people are simply mentally ill incurs a massive personal cost. Such expressions can get one put on a Southern Poverty Law Center hit list, banned from the ability to use social media and banking services, and opens one up to harassment and violence from anarchist and radical liberal militias given vast leeway to operate by the police.

An army of phony scientists, shameless academics, politicians and activist legal fronts, armed with unfathomable amounts of money, have been successful in using every dirty trick to completely circumvent and upend legislative democracy. Christopher Caldwell’s recent book, “The Age of Entitlement,” outlines how elites have been able to use Civil Rights precedents – where laws are decided in courts rather than by elected representatives and referendum – to radically transform American society by overruling the US Constitution and the will of the people.

Civil Rights, what was originally promoted as a second “Reconstruction” that would only impact issues related to Jim Crow in the South, has become a parallel vein of political power, where laws and rules that impact society as a whole are no longer tethered to public opinion or consent, but instead decided by a small group of rich Jews and capitalists, sometimes in the same family and playing diverse roles on the pitch to make their grotesque and oppressive dystopia real.

The Pritzkers and Transgenderism

The Pritzker family, heirs to the Hyatt Hotel, today use their estimated $29 billion dollar fortune to speculate on the stock market, dodge taxes, buy politicians, and rip people off with predatory banking schemes.

The Jewish clan has made capitalist-activism, where money wrung out of working class people is used to pay for the pet projects of the anti-social left, central to their plan to radically re-engineer America. The Hyatt Hotels have been specifically targeted in the past for their atrocious working conditions, while they have also raked in large illicit profits through Superior Bank, a usurious subprime lending racket that ripped off and ruined the lives of scores of poor people. The money-lending venture so abusive it compelled the government to force the Pritzkers to pay a $460 million dollar settlement. In a functional system they would’ve gone to prison.

One member, the billionaire Jennifer Pritzker, is a male-to-female transgender who served in the US military.

According to research conducted by Jennifer Bilek, Jennifer’s money, along with other figures like fellow Jew and transsexual Martine Rothblatt, has put the wind in the sails of the transgender top-down revolution, granting it scientific and medical credibility through the power of their checkbooks, along with trained operatives who have helped institutionalize in the corporate world. The Pritzkers are heavily invested in the world of pharmaceuticals and science.

Through the Tawani Foundation, Jennifer has been able to corrupt and influence the direction of the ACLU, various military academies, medical institutions (including for children) and universities.

In recent years, Jennifer has donated millions to the University of Minnesota Medical Department’s Human Sexuality department, carved out a “Pritzker School of Medicine” at the University of Chicago, and a “Transgender Studies” chair, handpicked by Pritzker, at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Other members of the Pritzker family donated $25 million to University of California at San Francisco’s child health department, which under the auspices of two Jews, predictably advocates for confused or ill young children to be given irreversible transsexual surgeries.

This money guarantees, in the very best case scenario, a veto on science that questions the validity of transgenderism, but often times just incentivizes these universities to produce pseudo-science in favor of it. UMN has a whole clinic dedicated to advocating in favor of and entertaining transgender insanity, targeting kids in particular. The University of Chicago’s School of Medicine has been transformed into a laboratory for macabre “gender-reassignment” human experimentation, akin to Magnus Hirschfeld’s Weimar-era house of horrors.

The private grant system and for-profit universities have reduced science in the United States to the propaganda mills dedicated to affirming the ideological will of donors like the Pritzkers, as seen with Brown University’s inexplicable retraction and apology for a study that found transgenderism is nothing more than a socially constructed fad spreading via peer pressure. Brown later allowed for the study to be republished after rare but intense media scrutiny, but this case was symbolic of the pressure scientists are under to never question system dogmas set in advance by billionaires.

The ridiculous “controversy” over whether the military should allow transgenders is another product of Pritzker money. It is hard to believe that retired and current military men think it is important to include transsexuals in the armed forces, but 10s of millions of dollars can get many of these careerists “woke.”

In 2013, Jennifer Pritzker donated $25 million to the prestigious University of Norwich and its military department, which is credited with creating the ROTC system. This was the largest donation the school has ever received in its 194 year history. A few years later, the University of Norwich’s student rules manual has a whole chapter dedicated to “accommodating” transgender recruits with special exceptions, putting the homo in globo-homo imperialism.

Agents trained in Pritzker funded school departments or who are selected for Pritzker scholarships include Jews like University of Chicago Medicine academic David T. Rubin who also served as an expert advisor at CVS Caremark, which acquired Target (famous for its transgender bathroom policy), and Loren S. Schecter, an influential “gender confirmation” surgeon.

The reason our national discourse takes on inane debates about whether women should get their own private bathrooms and lockerrooms in a country rife with real problems is because these are manifestations of consciousness streaming out of bags of money owned by the mentally disturbed.

While transgenderism is associated with the Democrats, Jennifer Pritzker is a life-long GOP donor, but the billionaire last year decried its “marginalization” at the hands of the Trump administration’s “rhetoric.” In its op-ed, Pritzker demands the GOP go back to focusing on low taxes for billionaires and defer to “experts” on issues like transgenderism – presumably the “experts” Jennifer personally funds to say what it thinks

The Democratic Political Machine

The Pritzker family is intimately involved with the Democratic establishment, especially in their home city of Chicago where they enjoy close ties to the Israeli Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama. Members of the family have chaired major campaigns, served as Secretary of Commerce, have been given control over the Chicago school system, directed Olympic games, and much more. J.B. Pritzker is currently the Governor of Illinois, and the chairman of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.

This family was very influential in Washington during the Obama years, where the Pritzkers, through bundling and personal donations, were able to collect $800 million dollars for Obama’s campaigns and inaugural funds.

Quid pro quo in the Obama years was rife, and the role of the Pritzkers in getting him elected was duly noted. Obama’s administration was important in using federal power to impose transgenderism in the public space, with pushes to integrate transsexuals into the military, creating “gender neutral” bathrooms in public schools and facilities, and increasing state funding to groups like the Tides Foundation, which in turn funds pro-transsexual activist groups. Penny Pritzker’s close relationship to Obama led to the government looking away as her and her family cheated the estate’s tax system, paying $9 million on their inheritances rather than the $150 million they should’ve owed.

Obama in 2013 appointed his handler Penny Pritzker, who ran his campaign’s finance wing in ’08 and chaired his campaign in ’12, to oversee his Department of Commerce, which allowed her to set the terms and priorities on new government initiatives like NIMBL, a program that allocates R&D grants for research on biopharmaceuticals.

Like Jennifer, Penny’s private “philanthropy” is obsessed with influencing what children are taught as well as the university system. Her Pritzker Traubert Family Foundation has funneled millions into Harvard’s Medical School, which has purchased her a spot as a member of the Harvard Corporation. Harvard is known for institutionalizing an extreme form of gender ideology that it submerges future elites in.

As for Penny’s brother, fellow billionaire and Governor J.B. Pritzker, he has turned the state Illinois into a free for all, often with a tranny bent.

He has signed executive orders and bills on immigration that ban local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE to deport criminal aliens, give wide swaths of Illinois’ illegal immigrant population amnesty, and developed a special incentive program for illegal and transgender students to receive public grants from the Monetary Award Program.

Governor Pritzker has also signed an executive order giving transgender and “non-binary” students special privileges in school, along with free access to an arsenal of lawyers that effectively controls the direction of sexual education and erases the First Amendment rights of fellow students.

The Pritzkers are only one, relatively small branch of America’s hereditary plutocracy. If you’re wondering why Presidential candidates like Elizabeth Warren or Great Wall Street Hope Pete Buttigieg have made the absurdity of transgenderism front and center in their campaigns, it’s because the Pritzkers are paying them to.

Universities, mass media, elections, law enforcement, medicine – all of these important institutions have been ruined by Jewish bankster money from people like the Pritzkers, who have almost fully replaced ethics and merit to indulge their fetishes and desire to control us.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)