Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
Wednesday, March 23, 2022
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1666
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Tuesday, March 22, 2022
Food, famine, fear: Beware the great agricultural reset
Americans awakening to the Orwellian Rule of Joe Biden and his crew of thieves have noticed that the perpetual lying is designed to inculcate pliancy through fear. When the COVID-19 hysteria began to wane, Big Brother Biden switched gears to the Ukraine crisis. Intriguingly, both crises have been caused by the government Biden heads – COVID-19 was crafted in Wuhan, and the Obama administration set the scene for making Ukraine America’s pawn in the current conflict. Conning Americans with one fear-lie to eclipse the previous, the biggest lie is yet to come. It is called Build Back Better, and it will unleash a greater terror than any virus or war: nationwide famine.
This dire warning is constructed not on fantasy but fact. As many watchful Americans have noticed during COVID-19, the nation’s grocery stores are not guaranteed to be chock full forever. The threats to Americans’ industrial food supplies are numerous and growing, compounded exponentially by escalating inflation. And whether Biden blames food scarcity on COVID-19, Putin, or Donald Trump, the grumbling bellies of children will be indifferent.
Wise agricultural voices unheeded by the zealotry of AOC have warned for decades that industrial agriculture is unsustainable, but most Americans conflate that term with the push for organics, or GMO-free labeling. The two are related, but the threats to food safety and security are far greater than those issues suggest: America is rapidly moving toward a complete collapse of its entire food production system, now aggravated by uncontrolled inflation. And since the conflict in Ukraine has very little to do with the underlying causes of U.S. inflation, if it ended tomorrow, American grocery bills will still rise steadily.
Decades of increasing centralization of food production have created an unprecedented threat to Americans and humanity: an utter dependence on fossil fuels for cheap food. This refers not just to diesel fuel for tractors to plow and harvest, but fertilizers manufactured from natural gas and limited natural resources. Forget about the petrodollar: it is time to comprehend the wheatdollar – as input costs rise, food prices will skyrocket, most especially in factory-grain dependent, confined animal feed operations (CAFOs).
This is not an argument to ban all industrial food production – millions would die. But it is folly to become wholly dependent on a system that yields short-term produce but long-term economic collapse. More, the problem is not just monetary – America is desertifying its prime farmlands, to the great peril of future generations: once lost, fertile soils are not easily reclaimed. The consequences of dosing farmland with chemicals for decades have been deteriorating soils, escalating erosion, and a loss of fertility and water retention. Concurrently, our nation’s underground aquifers are steadily diminishing as water is pumped onto the ever-drier ground with ever-thinner soils.
Back to the fear factor. Americans dizzy with fear-spinning from 911 and the “War on Terror” to date are so conditioned to fake “red lights” and “orange lights” to gaslight them into terror, that they are blind to the very real threat of food system collapse. For years now the rabid Left has ideologically pummeled Americans with false fears – a nonexistent “systemic racism,” active shooter drills, and warped reporting on gun violence, hand-wringing, and child-torturing over the End Times Climate Catastrophe.
But the real threat is corporate-dominated food production, enabled by bipartisan legislators for decades. Americans will soon see this growing threat is much more real than yellowcake uranium from Niger. And the AOC-Biden crew have already revealed their plan to “rescue” Americans by building corporate domination back better – totalitarianism is not complete without controlling food supplies.
Food security will be the future battleground in America. Under Biden, presumably poor black people and QBGLTs will be fed first (not Gates, Pelosi et al). Gun owners will surrender their weapons with a food buy-back plan: most gun owners in the U.S. have never gone one day without food and will surrender security and the Second Amendment for sustenance (unless they are self-reliant for food, something Big Brother does not endorse!).
This is what genuine fear looks like – not crocodile tears for long-dead black slaves, screaming appeals exploiting children, or dramatic calls to end the conflict America seeded in Ukraine. Those who call to send our young into foreign battle will themselves soon be battling to fill their bellies. Millions of Americans are waking in awareness to the unprecedented threat of famine in the world’s leading economic nation. This folly was avoidable: our vulnerability is by design. As Kissinger said, “Control the oil, control the nations. Control the food, control the people.”
Creepy Joe points to everybody else as the causes of the problems he seeds, whether war, inflation, or Hunter’s laptop. But the unfolding food insecurity and shrunken incomes of the 21st Century will not easily be laid at the feet of...
Censorship Takes Many Forms, Including Refusing to Cover Certain Stories
There has been much in the news lately about censorship. The major media have been reporting on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to keep the Russian people from hearing the truth about his war against Ukraine and what President Joe Biden has called war crimes.
Dictionary.com offers this definition of a censor: “an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.”
That “official” can be a head of state, like Putin, the head of a news operation, or even an individual reporter. Anyone who chooses to suppress a story or fails to investigate one because it does not conform to their worldview could be labeled a censor.
Which brings me to the Hunter Biden laptop story: the “discovery” by The New York Times that his laptop and its contents are real, after all. Not only did the Times and other major media and social media ignore the story, in some cases the story was deemed fraudulent and blocked on several platforms.
I think the more accurate explanation as to why the story was censored by these entities is that it was broken by the New York Post, which the mainstream media deem a “conservative” newspaper and by their standard, unreliable. The line favored by much of the suppression press was that the laptop story was Russian “disinformation.”
The real unreliable purveyors of disinformation (or no information) are those who failed to do their journalistic duty and investigate. That the story was not followed up on during the 2020 presidential campaign adds to the suspicion, especially among many conservatives, that the information suppression was deliberate.
NPR last year “corrected an online article that falsely asserted that documents from first son Hunter Biden’s laptop had been ‘discredited by U.S. intelligence.'” The correction came after the election. It took the Times and others until this year to fess up. According to the New York Post, 51 intelligence officers who signed a public letter claiming the laptop story was Russian disinformation have so far refused to apologize.
“Fact-checkers” published what they said were lies told by former President Donald Trump. The Washington Post calculated Trump had lied or uttered misleading statements 30,573 times during his four years in office. No such diligence has been conducted by the major media of Hunter Biden and his family’s alleged business and personal relationships with nefarious individuals and corrupt governments.
For years the legacy media has seen itself as the only “legitimate” source of news. In a type of “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it still make a sound?” scenario, if The New York Times, The Washington Post, broadcast and some cable news networks don’t report it, is it still news? Yes, it is and the source—whether it be the New York Post, U.K. Daily Mail, or talk radio—should not matter so long as the story can be independently verified.
That The New York Times failed to do so until now is a dereliction of the newspaper’s journalistic duty. Had the information been known before the election, it conceivably might have changed votes in...
How To Make More Good Communists...
Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane
Jane plays with Willi, Willi is happy again
Suki plays with Leo, Sacha plays with Britt
Adolf builds a bonfire, Enrico plays with it
Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside
Whistling tunes we're kissing baboons in the jungle
It's a knockout
If looks could kill,
They probably will
In games without frontiers
War without tears
Games without frontiers
War without tears
The Takeover of America's Legal System
The kids didn't grow out of it.
If you are a Common Sense reader, you are by now highly aware of the phenomenon of institutional capture. From the start, we have covered the ongoing saga of how America’s most important institutions have been transformed by an illiberal ideology—and have come to betray their own missions.
Medicine. Hollywood. Education. The reason we exist is because of the takeover of newspapers like The New York Times.
Ok, so we’ve lost a lot. A whole lot. But at least we haven’t lost the law. That’s how we comforted ourselves. The law would be the bulwark against this nonsense. The rest we could work on building anew.
But what if the country’s legal system was changing just like everything else?
Today, Aaron Sibarium, a reporter who has consistently been ahead of the pack on this beat, offers a groundbreaking piece on how the legal system in America, as one prominent liberal scholar put it, is at risk of becoming “a totalitarian nightmare.”
In 2017, the super lawyer David Boies was at a corporate retreat at the Ritz-Carlton in Key Biscayne, Florida, hosted by his law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner. Boies was a liberal legend: He had represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore, and, in 2013, successfully defended gay marriage in California, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, paving the way for the landmark Supreme Court ruling two years later.
On the last day of the retreat, Boies gave a talk in the hotel ballroom to 100 or so attorneys, according to a lawyer who was present at the event. Afterwards, Boies’s colleagues were invited to ask questions.
Most of the questions were yawners. Then, an associate in her late twenties stood up. She said there were lawyers at the firm who were “uncomfortable” with Boies representing disgraced movie maker Harvey Weinstein, and she wanted to know whether Boies would pay them severance so they could quit and focus on applying for jobs at other firms. Boies, who declined to comment for this article, said no.
That lawyers could be tainted by representing unpopular clients was hardly news. But in times past, lawyers worried about the public—not other lawyers. Defending communists, terrorists, and cop killers had never been a crowd pleaser, but that’s what lawyers had to do sometimes: Defend people who were hated.
When congressional Republicans attacked attorneys for representing Guantanamo detainees, for example, the entire profession rallied around them. The American Civil Liberties Union noted that John Adams took pride in representing British soldiers accused of taking part in the Boston Massacre, calling it “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered to my country.”
But that’s not how the new associates saw Boies’s choice to represent Weinstein. They thought there were certain people you just did not represent—people so hateful and reprehensible that helping them made you complicit. The partners, the old-timers—pretty much everyone over 50—found this unbelievable. That wasn’t the law as they had known it. That wasn’t America.
“The idea that guilty people shouldn’t get lawyers attacks the legal system at its root,” Andrew Koppelman, a prominent liberal scholar of constitutional law at Northwestern University, said. “People will ask: ‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ The answer is that a society where accused people don’t get a defense as a matter of course is a society you don’t want to live in. It’s a totalitarian nightmare.”
‘Operating in a Panopticon’
The adversarial legal system—in which both sides of a dispute are represented vigorously by attorneys with a vested interest in winning—is at the heart of the American constitutional order. Since time immemorial, law schools have tried to prepare their students to take part in that system.
Not so much anymore. Now, the politicization and tribalism of campus life have crowded out old-fashioned expectations about justice and neutrality. The imperatives of race, gender and identity are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law.
Critics of those values are nothing new, of course, and certainly they are not new at elite law schools. Critical race theory, as it came to be called in the 1980s, began as a critique of neutral principles of justice. The argument went like this:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)