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)

Stop acting like you never saw Michelle Obama’s testicles dancing on Ellen Degeneres show https://t.co/D7hOi0b9Zq pic.twitter.com/VIFW0APaVw

— S͎K͎E͎L͎E͎T͎O͎R͎ (@Skeletor_1981) August 4, 2023

By the way, that was not an accident or an oversight by the stage director. For one, these shows are pre-recorded. It was a deliberate signal to those in the know . . . A public acknowledgment. Wink, wink . . .

by Tyler Darden via Zero Hedge

In January 2023, Joe Rogan spoke with former CIA officer Mike Baker, and reflected specifically on George Soros:

“I had a conversation with the governor of Texas about him, with Greg Abbott, where he was explaining to me what George Soros does,” Rogan said.
“And it’s f’ terrifying that he donates money to a very progressive, very leftist — whether it’s a DA or whatever, politician, and then funds someone who’s even further left than them to go against them,” Rogan added.
“And just keeps moving it along. So he’s playing like a global game. And that he enjoys doing it.”

“Yeah. He enjoys doing it. But it is, it’s telling right? He understood early on where you wanted to seize power,” Baker replied.

Early on, indeed.

And now, in an ironic twist, Patrick Bet-David explained this week – also to Joe Rogan – Soros has been acting out his ‘god-like’ plan since at least 2004.

No lesser media outlet than The LA Times wrote (in 2004) following an interview with USA Today:

The begin by noting that George Soros’ motto, “If I spend enough, I will make it right”, is the essence of his articulated ideas about changing society.

Then the ‘god complex’ conversation happens: (via The LA Times) (emphasis ours)

It seems that Soros believes he was anointed by God.
“I fancied myself as some kind of god …” he once wrote.
“If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”
When asked by Britain’s Independent newspaper to elaborate on that passage, Soros said, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
Since I began to live it out.
Those unfamiliar with Soros would probably dismiss the statement out of hand. But for those who have followed his career and sociopolitical endeavors, it cannot be taken quite so lightly.
Soros has proved that with the vast resources of money at his command he has the ability to make the once unthinkable acceptable. His work as a self-professed “amoral” financial speculator has left millions in poverty when their national currencies were devaluated, and he pumped so much cash into shaping former Soviet republics to his liking that he has bragged that the former Soviet empire is now the “Soros Empire.”
Now he’s turned his eye on the internal affairs of the United States. Today’s U.S., he writes in his latest book, “The Bubble of American Supremacy,” is a “threat to the world,” run by a Republican Party that is the devil child of an unholy alliance between “market fundamentalists” and “religious fundamentalists.”
We have become a “supremacist” nation.

Can anyone imagine The LA Times writing anything like that today about The Open Society founder – protector of minorities, supporter of progressives, and general global anti-right chaos agent.

Worse still, this ‘god’ (with a small g) thinks he might be mad:

“Next to my fantasies about being God, I also have very strong fantasies of being mad,” Soros once confided on British television.
“In fact, my grandfather was actually paranoid. I have a lot of madness in my family. So far I have escaped it.”

Perhaps that explains his omnipresence at the loci of every chaos-engine-enabling event around the world.

The LA Times ends on a prophetic note:

In his book, “Soros on Soros,” he says: “I do not accept the rules imposed by others…. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don’t apply.” Clearly, Soros considers himself to be someone who is able to determine when the “normal rules” should and shouldn’t apply.

He who buys the most DAs, makes the rules (or sows enough chaos to reflexively create new rules).

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and wanna be President of the World, visits China, meets with THE President.

Chinese media revealed that this is Xi’s second meeting with a foreign businessman in several years, after Elon Musk.

President Xi Jinping thanked the American billionaire for his long-standing efforts to fight global poverty and for his extensive philanthropic work.

Ed. Note: Watch the body language of the “President of the World”. Unfortunately, we, the hoy poloi, were not informed of why Bill Gates, a nobody, a retired former businessman [sic], who stole other people creative ideas, lied about everything, and was a buddy buddy of Mossad pedophile predator Epstein had any credentials to be in a private audience with President Xi of China. However, his peddling of his creepy ideas of a World Government of Bill Gates, run on the basis of worldwide “health passports” administered by Bill Gates’ Microsoft, seems to have been less then a success, if we are to judge by the body language.  And the same, we hope, for the American 2030 project.

via ZeroHedge

After his first episode topped 100 million views, Tucker Carlson is back with Episode 2, exploring how we, as a population, are controlled (or coerced) directly (through laws) or indirectly (through taboos).

Carlson observes the changing societal taboos in America, suggesting that they are being dictated from above rather than evolving organically, focusing explicitly on the shift in attitudes towards race-based attacks, adultery in politics, and child molestation.

“Let’s say you wanted to control a country,” the former Fox News man begins rather joltingly.
“Well,” he explains “you’d want to make sure you had the complete obedience of everybody within your borders who was authorized to use deadly force… you’d start with the military… [and other agencies] like the IRS.”
“Controlling the guns would be a top priority for you if ever wanted to go dictatorial.”

But, Carlson, asks, what if you wanted more, not simply to control people’s behavior, “but to control how they think.”

“In that case,” he remarks, “you’d need to take charge of its taboos.”

A taboo is something that by popular consensus is not allowed, it is not illegal, but it doesn’t need to be.

“Over time, social prohibitions are more powerful and more enduring than laws.”

Until fairly recently, Tucker points out that it was taboo in this country to attack people on the basis of their race, but he notes “apparently we no longer believe that – punishing people on the basis of their skin color is not only permitted in modern America, it is mandatory… as long as the victims are white.”

Carlson questions the definition and scope of white supremacy as described by President Joe Biden…

Which brings Carlson to this week’s horrific WSJ expose of Instagram’s kiddie-porn rings which he notes has resulted in exactly nothing as “one of the largest circulation newspapers in the world reported that one of the world’s most influential companies was promoting pedophilia and nobody in power did anything about it.”

As Carlson notes, “The people who run this country no longer see child molesters as the worst among us”

He expresses concerns about the blurred lines of crime, the erosion of defined legal codes, and the need to protect societal taboos as guiding moral principles.

In fact, he continues, “what we are allowed to dislike is being dictated to us from above, sometimes by force.”

The trick, that has happened slowly and then all at one, is that “when a crime has no definition, anyone can be guilty of it”

“Don’t let them rationalize away your intuitive moral sense.”
“Cling to your taboos like you life depends on them… because it does.”

Watch the full Tucker On Twitter episode below:

Here is the full Tucker transcript:

Transcript:
Hey it’s Tucker Carlson let’s say you wanted to control a country how would you start we’d want to make sure you had the complete Obedience of everybody inside your borders who was authorized to use deadly force he would start with the military and then federal law enforcement and move your way down ultimately to agencies like the IRS controlling the guns would be a top priority for you if you would ever wanted to go dictatorial if you wanted to be baby doc
But let’s say you had deeper Ambitions; let’s say you wanted the power not simply to control people’s behavior but to control how they think not just their bodies but their minds as a God would in that case you need to take charge of the society’s taboos a taboo is something that by popular consensus is not allowed a taboo may not be illegal but it doesn’t need to be over time social prohibitions are more powerful and more enduring than laws.
Societies are defined by what they will not permit as our famously religions; Muslims don’t eat pork neither do Orthodox Jews traditional Christians oppose extramarital sex the Amish avoid electricity and so on.
American society isn’t overtly religious but it’s governed by taboos and it always has been what’s interesting is how fast our taboos are changing this is not happening organically what we’re allowed to dislike is being dictated to us from above sometimes by force until fairly recently for example it was Taboo in this country to attack people on the basis of their race that was the main lesson of the second world war we were told again and again
The one thing we learned from the Nazis is that it’s dangerous to reduce human beings to their genetic code there is no master race that made sense but apparently we no longer believe it punishing People based on their skin color is not only permitted in modern America it is mandatory
Throughout business and government and higher education as long as the victims are white at one time that would have been unimaginable so the current behavior of our politicians as recently as the 1992 presidential campaign adultery was considered disqualifying for anyone seeking higher office Bill Clinton was very nearly derailed in the New Hampshire primary by his affair with Jennifer Flowers Clinton went to elaborate lengths to lie about the relationship because he had no choice; but he was the last presidential candidate who had to meet the standard
By 2008 it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention that Barack Obama had a strange and highly creepy personal life yet nobody ever asked him about it; by that point a Leader’s Behavior within his own marriage the core relationship of his life had been declared irrelevant it was Barack Obama’s business not yours one by one with increasing speed our old taboos have been struck down those that remain have lost their moral Force
Stealing flaunting your wealth striking women smoking marijuana on the street Shameless public hypocrisy taking other people’s money for not working all of these things used to be considered unacceptable in America not anymore;
So it probably shouldn’t surprise us that the greatest taboo of all is teetering on the edge of acceptability – child molestation.
A generation ago talking to someone else’s children about sex was widely considered grounds for a thrashing; touching them sexually was effectively a death penalty offense. When Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in the bathroom of a Wisconsin prison in 1994 the Milwaukee district attorney had to caution the public not to turn Dahmer’s killer into a folk hero.
Jeffrey Dahmer had molested and murdered children people felt justified in celebrating his death; 25 years later that standard had changed dramatically in the state of Wisconsin as in the rest of the country in the summer of 2020 during the BLM riots in Kenosha seventeen-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse defended his life from a convicted child molester called Joseph Rosenbaum Rosenbaum was trying to kill Rittenhouse so Rittenhouse shot him in self-defense but it was Joseph Rosenbaum whom the media cast as the victim of the story
Kyle Rittenhouse meanwhile an underage boy fending off violence from a child molester was denounced as the villain ultimately he was indicted for murder one of the things that this tells us is the people who run our country no longer see child molesters as the worst Among Us.
It’s never been more obvious than it was yesterday when the Wall Street Journal ran a long expose about Kitty porn on Instagram Instagram the journal found quote helps connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content Instagram connects pedophiles and connects them to content sellers of child pornography
In one instance the paper discovered that Instagram was recommending the phrase “incest toddlers” to users who’d expressed interest in similar material.
By the way no one at Instagram denied that any of this had happened nor did Mark Zuckerberg who controls the company the journal story was accurate it was all pretty shocking; but not as shocking as what happened next which was effectively nothing at all
The largest circulation newspaper in the United States revealed that one of the world’s most influential companies was promoting pedophilia and nobody in power did anything about it; the justice department did not announce an investigation Congress did not schedule hearings the guy who runs Instagram Adam Ozeri still has his job; in fact Ozeri’s last tweet which is pinned is a video of himself bragging about how effective Instagram’s algorithm is.
Keep in mind as you watch this it’s real people often talk about the algorithm but there is no one algorithm for Instagram there are many algorithms and ranking processes we use to try to personalize the experience to make it as interesting as we can for each and every person who uses Instagram we believe in this idea of personalization what you’re interested in and what I’m interested in is different and so therefore your Instagram and my Instagram should be different
What you’re interested in and what I’m interested in is different Ozeri explains patiently so your Instagram feed will be different from mine; you’re interested in children that’s why you’re getting all the incest toddler posts it’s a highly personalized experience that tweet is still up tonight of course everybody at Instagram in fact everyone everywhere in Authority will still claim to think that child molestation is bad but the tone has changed unmistakably;
When they say it’s bad they mean it in a kind of abstract way bad like a Civil War in central Africa is bad you wouldn’t prefer it but there are reasons it happens that’s what we now refer to pedophiles as minor attracted persons because honestly who can judge these people are a sexual minority; so pause before you attack them and in any case it’s not like pedophiles are barging into the Capitol Building to sit in Nancy Pelosi’s chair we’re asking uncomfortable questions about the last election; for miscreants like that no punishment is too harsh so far this month the FBI’s Washington field office has issued 11 press releases 10 out of 11 have been about January 6th
Keep in mind that January 6th happened more than two and a half years ago now you know why the feds were ignoring kid touchers on Instagram they’re too busy to respond they’ve got much more important things to do like finding White supremacists;
White supremacists are America’s new child molesters; we’ve got zero tolerance for white supremacists because no one threatens the life of this country more than they do here’s Joe Biden once again making that very clear last month “stand up against the poison of white supremacists I did my inaugural address to a single out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy [Applause] and I’m not saying this because I’m at a black hpcu I say wherever I Go”
Pardon the feedback but you heard the point white supremacy is the most dangerous threat to the American Homeland Joe Biden just told us that it’s more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war with Russia it’s more dangerous than the threat of the Mexican drug cartels who’ve already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and are now in control of swaths of our Southwestern States; white supremacy is that bad. Joe Biden says in fact it’s worse but what is it that’s the question can anyone in Authority actually Define white supremacy; what is it is white supremacy liking white people too much? if so that’s going to put those of us with white children in a pretty tough spot; or as white supremacy something much more obviously bad like trying to expel all non-whites from America in creating some kind of ethno state. 
If that’s Joe Biden’s definition what exactly is the scope of this threat how many people are currently working on this American white ethnostate project and what are the chances they’re going to pull it off? Our guess is not very many and precisely zero but we can’t say for sure because no one has showed us the numbers.
These are not rhetorical questions when the president of the United States describes something as the worst possible crime Americans can commit you have a right to know what that crime is; you used to have that right under our pre-revolutionary legal code before George Floyd questions like these were easy to answer. A crime was defined as something that an elected legislature had explicitly banned usually an act that hurts somebody else.
In America crimes were described precisely with words in English and then preserved in books which you could read yourself; if you ever wondered whether you were committing a crime you could just look it up; you could know for sure whether you were a criminal, now you can’t.
And needless to say that’s the point the point of the exercise – to keep you off balance, to keep you afraid. When no one’s willing to define the offense you can’t be sure whether or not you’re committing it; you could be accused at any time and everything you have taken from you: you live in fear.
Remember this guy Emmanuel Cafferty was driving near a black lives matter protest in Poway in his E Truck when he says he noticed somebody following him and trying to get his attention later that person posted a picture of him making what some believed is a white supremacy symbol on Twitter. Cafferty says he had no idea about any white power symbols and was just cracking his knuckles outside his window when the picture was taken of him later that day he says he was notified by SDG&E that he would be suspended pending an investigation and a few days later he was fired.
What that man did was so offensive as you just saw that local news had to blur the photograph of his hand he was fired from his job his life was destroyed for cracking his knuckles. He didn’t know cracking his knuckles was racist in his defense but then nobody did until the day that poor Emmanuel Cafferty was unwise enough to crack them.
When a crime has no definition anyone can be guilty of it. It’s hard to relax in a country like that the old system was better: government operated on the basis of laws not amorphous moral Terror. Politicians couldn’t accuse you of something they couldn’t Define the legal code was straightforward; child molestation was a crime; having unfashionable opinions was not. Outside of the public sphere the population mostly governed itself as it does in every society and used taboos to do it.
You knew what was allowed and what wasn’t because the rules didn’t change very often the taboos were organic; they derived from collective experience and Instinct the two most reliable guides to life. They evolved for a reason they still do.
Our job at this point is to protect them despite the hectoring – the non-stop hectoring from the people in charge. You know the outlines of right and wrong you’re born knowing them. So don’t let them talk you out of what you can smell don’t let them rationalize away your intuitive moral sense. Cling to your taboos like your life depends on them, because it does.
Cherish and protect them like family heirlooms: that’s exactly what they are.

]