Think. You will know those in government are not on your side. Now we must decide what to do about them.
It is a problem with people working in government and working with government. There is a big problem with people, foundations and corporations who are not in government but provide products and services to government, contractors etc., including those who for example give $100 million to avowed communists and those who fund school books and indoctrination programs such as critical race theory, black lives matter, etc., and government contractors who provide services, data and spies which are illegal for government itself.
Of course, communism, an ideology created by 2 college students in the 1850s, is government control of everything, property, people, business, the means of production, etc. , everything except an oligarchy. The big question is as usual: will the military and police support the people in government and the oligarchy, or will they stand with the people against communism?
Read to the end of this link by journalist Glenn Greenwald. We are living through criminal racketeering similar to protection rackets run by mafia and gangs. They stir up crime and fear then extort money from fearful people to protect them from the crimes. In this case, the racketeer criminals are the FBI, NSA, CIA, CDC and government, and their ilk in all countries as well as the supranational organizations like WHO, UN, World Bank, IMF, etc.
Christopher F. Rufo Founder and Director, Battlefront
Christopher F. Rufo is founder and director of Battlefront, a public policy research center. He is a graduate of Georgetown University and a former Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy. As executive director at the Documentary Foundation, he has directed four films for PBS, including most recently America Lost, which explores life in Youngstown, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Stockton, California. He is also a contributing editor of City Journal, where he covers topics including critical race theory, homelessness, addiction, and crime.
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on March 30, 2021.
Critical race theory is fast becoming America’s new institutional orthodoxy. Yet most Americans have never heard of it—and of those who have, many don’t understand it. It’s time for this to change. We need to know what it is so we can know how to fight it.
In explaining critical race theory, it helps to begin with a brief history of Marxism. Originally, the Marxist Left built its political program on the theory of class conflict. Marx believed that the primary characteristic of industrial societies was the imbalance of power between capitalists and workers. The solution to that imbalance, according to Marx, was revolution: the workers would eventually gain consciousness of their plight, seize the means of production, overthrow the capitalist class, and usher in a new socialist society.
During the 20th century, a number of regimes underwent Marxist-style revolutions, and each ended in disaster. Socialist governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Cuba, and elsewhere racked up a body count of nearly 100 million of their own people. They are remembered for their gulags, show trials, executions, and mass starvations. In practice, Marx’s ideas unleashed man’s darkest brutalities.
By the mid-1960s, Marxist intellectuals in the West had begun to acknowledge these failures. They recoiled at revelations of Soviet atrocities and came to realize that workers’ revolutions would never occur in Western Europe or the United States, where there were large middle classes and rapidly improving standards of living. Americans in particular had never developed a sense of class consciousness or class division. Most Americans believed in the American dream—the idea that they could transcend their origins through education, hard work, and good citizenship.
But rather than abandon their Leftist political project, Marxist scholars in the West simply adapted their revolutionary theory to the social and racial unrest of the 1960s. Abandoning Marx’s economic dialectic of capitalists and workers, they substituted race for class and sought to create a revolutionary coalition of the dispossessed based on racial and ethnic categories.
Fortunately, the early proponents of this revolutionary coalition in the U.S. lost out in the 1960s to the civil rights movement, which sought instead the fulfillment of the American promise of freedom and equality under the law. Americans preferred the idea of improving their country to that of overthrowing it. The vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., President Johnson’s pursuit of the Great Society, and the restoration of law and order promised by President Nixon in his 1968 campaign defined the post-1960s American political consensus.
But the radical Left has proved resilient and enduring—which is where critical race theory comes in.
WHAT IT IS
Critical race theory is an academic discipline, formulated in the 1990s, built on the intellectual framework of identity-based Marxism. Relegated for many years to universities and obscure academic journals, over the past decade it has increasingly become the default ideology in our public institutions. It has been injected into government agencies, public school systems, teacher training programs, and corporate human resources departments in the form of diversity training programs, human resources modules, public policy frameworks, and school curricula.
There are a series of euphemisms deployed by its supporters to describe critical race theory, including “equity,” “social justice,” “diversity and inclusion,” and “culturally responsive teaching.” Critical race theorists, masters of language construction, realize that “neo-Marxism” would be a hard sell. Equity, on the other hand, sounds non-threatening and is easily confused with the American principle of equality. But the distinction is vast and important. Indeed, equality—the principle proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, defended in the Civil War, and codified into law with the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—is explicitly rejected by critical race theorists. To them, equality represents “mere nondiscrimination” and provides “camouflage” for white supremacy, patriarchy, and oppression.
In contrast to equality, equity as defined and promoted by critical race theorists is little more than reformulated Marxism. In the name of equity, UCLA Law Professor and critical race theorist Cheryl Harris has proposed suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines. Critical race guru Ibram X. Kendi, who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has proposed the creation of a federal Department of Antiracism. This department would be independent of (i.e., unaccountable to) the elected branches of government, and would have the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law at any level of government and curtail the speech of political leaders and others who are deemed insufficiently “antiracist.”
One practical result of the creation of such a department would be the overthrow of capitalism, since according to Kendi, “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” In other words, identity is the means and Marxism is the end.
An equity-based form of government would mean the end not only of private property, but also of individual rights, equality under the law, federalism, and freedom of speech. These would be replaced by race-based redistribution of wealth, group-based rights, active discrimination, and omnipotent bureaucratic authority. Historically, the accusation of “anti-Americanism” has been overused. But in this case, it’s not a matter of interpretation—critical race theory prescribes a revolutionary program that would overturn the principles of the Declaration and destroy the remaining structure of the Constitution.
HOW IT WORKS
What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.
This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities, and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”
I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, it is not an exaggeration—from the universities to bureaucracies to k-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.
This is a revolutionary change. When originally established, these government institutions were presented as neutral, technocratic, and oriented towards broadly-held perceptions of the public good. Today, under the increasing sway of critical race theory and related ideologies, they are being turned against the American people. This isn’t limited to the permanent bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., but is true as well of institutions in the states, even in red states, and it is spreading to county public health departments, small Midwestern school districts, and more. This ideology will not stop until it has devoured all of our institutions.
Thus far, attempts to halt the encroachment of critical race theory have been ineffective. There are a number of reasons for this.
First, too many Americans have developed an acute fear of speaking up about social and political issues, especially those involving race. According to a recent Gallup poll, 77 percent of conservatives are afraid to share their political beliefs publicly. Worried about getting mobbed on social media, fired from their jobs, or worse, they remain quiet, largely ceding the public debate to those pushing these anti-American ideologies. Consequently, the institutions themselves become monocultures: dogmatic, suspicious, and hostile to a diversity of opinion. Conservatives in both the federal government and public school systems have told me that their “equity and inclusion” departments serve as political offices, searching for and stamping out any dissent from the official orthodoxy.
Second, critical race theorists have constructed their argument like a mousetrap. Disagreement with their program becomes irrefutable evidence of a dissenter’s “white fragility,” “unconscious bias,” or “internalized white supremacy.” I’ve seen this projection of false consciousness on their opponents play out dozens of times in my reporting. Diversity trainers will make an outrageous claim—such as “all whites are intrinsically oppressors” or “white teachers are guilty of spirit murdering black children”—and then when confronted with disagreement, they adopt a patronizing tone and explain that participants who feel “defensiveness” or “anger” are reacting out of guilt and shame. Dissenters are instructed to remain silent, “lean into the discomfort,” and accept their “complicity in white supremacy.”
Third, Americans across the political spectrum have failed to separate the premise of critical race theory from its conclusion. Its premise—that American history includes slavery and other injustices, and that we should examine and learn from that history—is undeniable. But its revolutionary conclusion—that America was founded on and defined by racism and that our founding principles, our Constitution, and our way of life should be overthrown—does not rightly, much less necessarily, follow.
Fourth and finally, the writers and activists who have had the courage to speak out against critical race theory have tended to address it on the theoretical level, pointing out the theory’s logical contradictions and dishonest account of history. These criticisms are worthy and good, but they move the debate into the academic realm, which is friendly terrain for proponents of critical race theory. They fail to force defenders of this revolutionary ideology to defend the practical consequences of their ideas in the realm of politics.
No longer simply an academic matter, critical race theory has become a tool of political power. To borrow a phrase from the Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, it is fast achieving “cultural hegemony” in America’s public institutions. More and more, it is driving the vast machinery of the state and society. If we want to succeed in opposing it, we must address it politically at every level.
Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?
There are three parts to a successful strategy to defeat the forces of critical race theory: governmental action, grassroots mobilization, and an appeal to principle.
We already see examples of governmental action. Last year, one of my reports led President Trump to issue an executive order banning critical race theory-based training programs in the federal government. President Biden rescinded this order on his first day in office, but it provides a model for governors and municipal leaders to follow. This year, several state legislatures have introduced bills to achieve the same goal: preventing public institutions from conducting programs that stereotype, scapegoat, or demean people on the basis of race. And I have organized a coalition of attorneys to file lawsuits against schools and government agencies that impose critical race theory-based programs on grounds of the First Amendment (which protects citizens from compelled speech), the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides equal protection under the law), and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race).
On the grassroots level, a multiracial and bipartisan coalition is emerging to do battle against critical race theory. Parents are mobilizing against racially divisive curricula in public schools and employees are increasingly speaking out against Orwellian reeducation in the workplace. When they see what is happening, Americans are naturally outraged that critical race theory promotes three ideas—race essentialism, collective guilt, and neo-segregation—which violate the basic principles of equality and justice. Anecdotally, many Chinese-Americans have told me that having survived the Cultural Revolution in their former country, they refuse to let the same thing happen here.
In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.
Similarly, in addition to pointing out the dishonesty of the historical narrative on which critical race theory is predicated, we must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made towards realizing them. Genuine American history is rich with stories of achievements and sacrifices that will move the hearts of Americans—in stark contrast to the grim and pessimistic narrative pressed by critical race theorists.
Above all, we must have courage—the fundamental virtue required in our time. Courage to stand and speak the truth. Courage to withstand epithets. Courage to face the mob. Courage to shrug off the scorn of the elites. When enough of us overcome the fear that currently prevents so many from speaking out, the hold of critical race theory will begin to slip. And courage begets courage. It’s easy to stop a lone dissenter; it’s much harder to stop 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000, or more who stand up together for the principles of America.
Truth and justice are on our side. If we can muster the courage, we will win.
The problem that global warming skeptics have had for years is they are arguing a point where their opponents – that is the proponents of AGW or human-caused global warming – are using estimates of human CO2 emissions. But skeptics in rebuttal have no measurements of global human CO2 emission, obviously because it is buried in the noise of CO2 fluxes which are at least 10 times larger. Skeptics are arguing with a straw man on a yellow brick road.
AGW proponents, as they tend to do, proposed a hypothesis which they believe cannot be validated by measured data, then get grant funding to gather and analyze expensive data (instruments, super computers, ocean going ships, etc.) to attempt to prove and justify their hypotheses. But that is not science; that is advocacy. In science, you design hypotheses which can be falsified by experiment and observations. AGW proponents are doing the opposite. They produce hypotheses (aka computer models) to justify spending billions on bigger computer models, research expeditions and conferences. Meanwhile, AGW proponents and “luke-warmers” and fence sitters as well as most skeptics and so-called “deniers” ignore the answers in nature staring them in the face.
With regard to oil, gas and coal companies, remember these companies make much higher profit if their supply and demand are constrained by government policy. Never lose sight of that fact. They are not to blame for the CO2 concentration, but don’t expect those shareholders to harm themselves based on politics. The global warming / climate change agenda means per dollar of revenue these companies need less exploration and R&D, achieved at lower risk, less production, and lower distribution expenses to produce higher profits. So, most of these companies support the green initiatives rather than fight the politicians. They prefer to sell gasoline for $5 per gallon than $0.5 per gallon, and return higher profits to their shareholders. Politicians win with $5 gasoline because taxes on the higher profits result in higher tax revenue for government, and politicians have a target for their indoctrinated “green” constituency, which enables division of voter constituencies and political contributions. Shareholders, boards, executives and employees have no obligation to spend their money to protect voters and citizens from bad political decisions.
The concentrations of CO2 in both atmosphere and in ocean are independent of the source of the CO2. Don’t blame yourself or fossil fuel energy or those suppliers for the increasing CO2 or temperature. You and they are scapegoats. The carbon footprint of an individual, of a country, or the entire population does not change the CO2 concentration in the air. Since ocean is an infinite sink for CO2 and since CO2 is highly soluble in ocean water and also reacts with ocean water and many ions in ocean water, and since the concentration of CO2 gas in ocean and in air are determined ONLY by temperature, pH, salinity and pressure, then no amount of CO2 subtracted from or added to the atmosphere by humans will change the CO2 concentration trend.
Burning all of the fossil fuel on earth and putting all of that CO2 in the air would not change the net global CO2 concentration trend, but by the way, it would be impossible to burn all of the fossil fuel on earth unless we destroyed the ocean, because fossil fuels are still being created in enormous quantity. Perhaps you thought it came from dinosaurs.
Notice that AGW proponents including IPCC report that earth’s atmosphere contains ~800 gigatonnes of CO2 gas, while ocean surface CO2 gas reservoir is ~1000 gigatonnes, and deep ocean contains ~ 40,000 gigatonnes of carbon. (One gigatonne is equal to 10^9 metric tonnes or 10^12 kilograms, that is 1,000,000,000,000 kilograms.) And they also report that fossil fuel CO2 emission flux by humans is ~8 gigatonnes per year and that there are annual CO2 fluxes between air and ocean in opposite directions of ~90 gigatonnes in each direction (into air from ocean, and into ocean from air). Using their estimates, there are two annual CO2 fluxes which are each 10 times larger than human CO2 flux. These two ~90 gigatonne fluxes are continuously circulating between an ~800 gigatonne atmospheric CO2 reservoir and a ~1000 gigatonne ocean surface CO2 reservoir. Incredibly, they claim to be concerned about an annual CO2 concentration slope of about 2.5 parts per million per year and persist that this tiny slope is due to humans. But try to find an explanation in their literature for the cause of these two giant natural fluxes and their size and continuous giant dilution relative to human emission.
It is obvious that the relatively tiny human CO2 flux cannot be causing or disrupting a CO2 balance between these two giant fluxes in opposite directions (each of which are 10 times larger than human CO2 emissions) which are continuously flowing between two CO2 gas sinks/sources which are both 100 times larger than human CO2 emissions. The climate crisis is a fabrication. They are attempting to lay a guilt trip on humanity. I will leave the reasons for that for another discussion.
The net global average CO2 concentration and its slope are dominantly controlled by ocean surface temperature, and ocean is 98% of the water on earth and over 70% earth’s surface area. Ocean is the sink for ~ 5000 times more dissolved CO2 than humans emit per year, and then there is much carbonate which has reacted with calcium ions and solidified into carbon rocks such as limestone. There is no causal connection between CO2 emission sources and earth’s temperature nor with earth’s climate, nor with net global CO2 concentration nor with any other climate variable that is a co-variable with net global average CO2 concentration.
CO2 concentration in air and ocean is defined by Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law is independent of the source of the CO2 and dominantly dependent on the temperature of ocean surface and the net surface area of ocean at that temperature, while being less dependent on pH, salinity and pressure because the average net global variability of these other factors is low. The trend or slope of average ocean surface temperature has been slowly increasing, therefore the Henry’s Law coefficient that defines the partition ratio of CO2 between ocean surface and air has been adjusting to the slowly warming ocean temperature surface. The result is a net global average CO2 concentration trend or slope observed at Mauna Loa which is slowly increasing in lock-step with slowly increasing ocean surface temperature.
The late geologist Lance Endersbee graphed this relationship at 99% correlation using CO2 data from the NOAA Scripps Keeling lab on Mauna Loa with respect to ocean surface temperature (SST) after removal of time. This graph is the derivative of atmospheric CO2 concentration with respect to sea surface temperature. You are typically shown these two data sets as derivatives with respect to time.
The US government is THE cyber war machine. NSA soaks up all electronic communications and databases it for exploitation by political operatives…storing that data permanently. The FBI, the newspeak-named Department of Justice and many courts support political operations. Government uses contractors to impersonate people on social media, and other things that are illegal for government to do itself.
They work with social media to control messaging, content, and silencing opposition…acts which should be prosecuted under racketeering RICO laws. They work with mainstream media to control the narrative. They fund anti-cultural propaganda and indoctrination campaigns in schools and universities. They prosecute and arrest people who oppose government, but government and cronies have no fear of prosecution. They spy on their political opponents and their allies. They fabricate lies and slander politicians and private individuals, and then prosecute them based on those lies. They have secret courts and judges approve spy operations and release of personal information. They prosecute and arrest whistleblowers without due process who reveal such travesties. They funded and created a global pandemic disease and patented the treatment for the disease, then they control narrative for its spread, and coerce those who resist the narrative and treatment. In recent elections we were disenfranchised, we lost our vote to fraud, and government has done almost nothing to change that. The government is actively debasing the currency by their obsessive, profligate, abusive spending, which is theft of your assets. Government is selectively enforcing laws and creating policies and laws which protect government against the people. Our government is engaged in subversion of our culture and society with promoted programs such as “Critical Race Theory,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Climate Change,” “Social Justice” and other forms of identity politics by promoting fear and division while mouthing opposite words. The meanings of many words are upside down, subverted. Historian Victor Davis Hanson describes it as “the cancer of wokism.”
Is there any part of cyber war our government is not actively doing today? But, yes, China, Russia, Cuba, etc. do all of that and worse. The UK, Canada, France, Germany and other countries do it also, more or less by country, and are even more accomplished in other areas such as video surveillance of the population and suppression of free speech.
Former KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from the Soviet Union in the 1970’s, describes the process of ideological subversion in this short video interview from 1984. He made several other more detailed descriptions which can be found online.
Do you get the picture? The problem is not the form of government, e.g. republic or democracy, etc. The problem is not the constitutions in the various governments and it is not capitalism. It is the ideology of the people currently in most governments. They are the ones they have been waiting for, to accurately paraphrase former U.S. President Obama. They are Marxists, an ideological religion of government, class warfare and revolution, created by two college students in the mid-1800s.
Ideology starts wars and kills millions. Marxism has killed hundreds of millions. The people they have been waiting for are the people who want to take full control, and believe that they are the ones to do that and now is the time to act. The most destructive ideology is more government, also known as collectivism, socialism and communism, wherein the government controls the people and all forms of production.
These true believers are in governments around the world today. They believe that by frustrating you with fear, guilt, failure, disenchantment with the system and self-disgust that you will bury your own identity and join them in their ant hill, in their cause aimed at a future utopia. They are creating a mass movement, we are the fodder for their cannons, their power, their wealth and their control. Uber-elitist Klaus Schwab proclaimed The Great Reset at the World Economic Forum and in his book, ‘you will own nothing and you will be happy.’
Blue Planet In Green Shackles: An outstanding response to the EU climate package came from former Czech president Vaclav Klaus. Lubos Motl provided a translation. In part, Klaus wrote:
“This climate package is not bold. It is stupid and nonsensical. It is unrealistic, and if it were to be implemented, it would be a completely destructive package. Completely destructive to the lives, freedom and living standards of the people of Europe.”
“That this package can do any good for the planet is something only green activists, only the advocates of the utterly unsustainable doctrine of climate alarmism, can think. Only people who believe in an immediate linear or even exponential relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average global temperature. I am not one of these deluded individuals who have managed to garner such absurd media coverage. Man’s role in the evolution of global temperatures over the long term is completely negligible. Moreover, CO2 has already played its potential role in influencing temperatures. The intention of carbon neutrality is an anti-human policy. It has almost no connection to temperature.”
As Klaus implies, the physical evidence shows that human additions of CO2 have a minor impact on earth’s temperature and climate. This has been shown in numerous experiments since John Tyndall in 1859. The experiments are confirmed by observations of the atmosphere. The speculated amplification from increased water vapor embodied in global climate models remains speculation. Global atmospheric temperature trends show no such amplification.
Born under Fascism (Nazism) and coming of age under Communism, Klaus has articulated how destructive authoritarian governments can be, regardless of what one labels such belief systems. The Amazon description of his book is:
“The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism or Communism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism. So writes Vaclav Klaus, [former] president of the Czech Republic, in Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered – Climate Or Freedom?
In this brilliantly argued book, Klaus argues that the environmental movement has transformed itself into an ideology that seeks to restrict human activities at any cost, and that policies being proposed to address global warming are both economically harmful — especially to poor nations – and utterly unjustified by current science.”
“The astronomical costs of Net Zero policies are beginning to cause public anger and political upheaval. Now the EU is rocked by a massive revolt over its Green Deal plans. It is becoming evident by the day that the cost and pain of Net Zero’s utopian plans won’t survive contact with the public.”
“Brussels’ historic attempt to tackle climate change faces a wall of opposition from governments in the bloc on the ground that its plans would hit their households with higher energy costs.”
“So why propose something so preposterous? Don’t underestimate the extent to which EU bureaucrats—and Europe’s national leaders—truly believe in the cause of eliminating carbon emissions. This is especially true in Germany, where voters and their politicians still pray to the climate gods despite the mounting costs.
“But don’t underestimate more cynical explanations. The backdrop for all of this is a new U.S. Administration that also wants to talk about its climate virtue. Brussels may hope that, by talking up its own climate ambitions, it can goad President Biden into inflicting on the U.S. economy costs similar to those that already hobble European industries. And if that doesn’t work, Fit for 55 includes a proposal for a carbon tariff as a diplomatic stick.”
“Our current tools do not do enough. If we don’t fight the climate crisis, we will be fighting wars over water and food,” said Frans Timmermans, the commission’s executive vice-president in charge of the Green Deal, who has also said the measures were needed to “put a price on carbon, and a premium on decarbonisation”.
“The critical thinking exhibited by the European Union to “fight” climate change is reminiscent of the critical thinking exhibited by the European powers as they rushed off to fight in the glorious World War I, without a compelling threat. The threats were largely the product of propaganda coupled by vanity and arrogance. So is the threat of carbon dioxide-caused climate change. Germany came close to executing a brilliant plan but fell short and four years of destruction and human slaughter ensued,” commented Ken Haapala, President of SEPP.org (Science and Environment Policy Project.)
Last Friday Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a successful German lawyer, who heads the Corona Investigative Committee, interviewed on line Dr. David Martin, who heads M-CAM, a company which follows patents for various financial interests, since 1998 “the world’s largest underwriter of intangible assets used in finance in 168 countries. Our underwriting systems include the entire corpus of all patents, patent applications, federal grants, procurement records, e-government records” with the ability to track intellectual properties and who is involved.
Dr. Martin states, “We have reviewed over 4,000 patents issued around SARS-coronavirus and done a very comprehensive review of the financing of all the manipulation of coronavirus which gave rise to SARS.”
There are over 70 patents on various aspects of this corona virus dating back more than 20 years, vaccines for this virus, diagnostic testing for this virus, lipid packaging for injected delivery of the synthetic mRNA into cells, synthetic nucleotide sequence inserted into a well-known non-dangerous virus, and converting it into a bio-weapon. These have been used to drive fear in the population and produce profits from governments and people worldwide. There are also documented discussions which occurred before the “outbreak” about manipulating the narrative in the media and “investors” profiting from that.
This is an organized crime case, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the perpetrators are the heads of major governmental health and infectious disease organizations, several of the major pharmaceutical companies, and more. The evidence is in the hands of competent attorneys. When the case is over, the penalty phase will require the equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials, the major trial of war criminals after World War II, and this is not an overstatement or hyperbole. Millions of people have died due to a plot by people and organizations which began more than 20 years ago to institutionalize vaccinations into the public mind, educational systems, media, culture and behavior through fear. And millions more were expected to become addicted to these vaccines, which will continue to roll out.
Dr. Martin carefully lays out the scenario, the evidence, the trail of patents, the companies and some of the perpetrators. This is long and detailed, but every 5 minutes there is another gut punch of hard information. This pandemic was a planned execution designed to enrich the racketeers.
Here, for example, is the abstract for 1 of the 70 patents. Note the date.
“A helper cell for producing an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus (or more generally nidovirus) particle cell comprises (a) a nidovirus permissive cell; (b) a nidovirus replicon RNA comprising the nidovirus packaging signal and a heterologous RNA sequence, wherein the replicon RNA further lacks a sequence encoding at least one nidovirus structural protein; and (c) at least one separate helper RNA encoding the at least one structural protein absent from the replicon RNA, the helper RNA(s) lacking the nidovirus packaging signal. The combined expression of the replicon RNA and the helper RNA in the nidovirus permissive cell produces an assembled nidovirus particle which comprises the heterologous RNA sequence, is able to infect a cell, and is unable to complete viral replication in the absence of the helper RNA due to the absence of the structural protein coding sequence in the packaged replicon. Compositions for use in making such helper cells, along with viral particles produced from such cells, compositions of such viral particles, and methods of making and using such viral particles, are also disclosed.”
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL SUPPORT
“This invention was made possible with government support under grant numbers AI23946 and GM63228 from the National Institutes of Health. The United States government has certain rights to this invention.”
The above patent is but one example. In this case it is research at University of North Carolina funded by Anthony Fauci. There are many more involving Fauci, named as inventor, and other labs, companies and names you will recognize. For example, in January 2000 Pfizer filed for a patent on the genetic sequence for the coronavirus spike protein.
The corona virus is not novel, was not dangerous, and the vaccines and diagnostic test were not rushed to solve a sudden crisis pandemic disease. The public is being coerced, enticed, extorted, infected, vaccinated and silenced and many permanently harmed and killed. It is an engineered lie to make profits. You do not want to miss this video. Grab another coffee or a double cocktail.
Conclusion from report in Journal of Infection (link below)…
“The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population.”
31 May 2021.
Remember, this is the same test that was used by the pharma companies to validate the effect (efficacy) of the vaccines in clinical trials, and also the same test that is the “gold standard” to determine “cases” in the population and ultimately deaths attributed to SARS CoV-2.
Two hour podcast. If you already know Dr. Malone, you can skip 30 or 40 minutes of introduction and chat.
This podcast is about:
You make your own decisions, it’s your body.
Profound disillusion with public health
The Noble Lie
Full disclosure on experimental drugs and testing
Rights of individual versus state: interests of the state do not outweigh the individual, e.g., The Nuremberg Trials
Coercion, enticement, extortion
Natural selection of virus and evolution of virus. Herd immunity. How long will this epidemic last?
Vaccinate kids? Let them play.
Newspeak and controlling the language that we use. The Trusted News Initiative Consortium = George Orwell’s The Ministry of Truth in 1984
Made in America versus what?
The cult of personality vs science
Dr. Robert W. Malone is the inventor of the mRNA vaccines, DNA vaccine technology, and RNA as a drug. Dr. Malone has close to 100 peer-reviewed publications, has over 11,477 citations of his peer reviewed publications, has been an invited speaker at over 50 conferences, has chaired numerous conferences and he has sat on or served as chairperson on numerous NIAID and DoD study sections. Dr. Malone has an amazing resume, and should be considered one of the most creditable & respected voices in regards to the mRNA tech used in the COVID vaccines, and instead, Dr. Malone has been censored & suppressed on many platforms.