Activists confront traitor march

December 6, 2019

from Nordic Resistance Movement

On November 30, activists from Nest 2 paid a visit to an anti-Nordic demonstration which was subsequently called off. After the Resistance Movement’s activity was covered extensively in the Swedish lying press, Nordfront contacted one of the activists to find out what really happened.

“Stop the Population Replacement”

The torchlight demonstration was organised by Helsjön Folk High School and local churches in the town of Horred, western Sweden, who claimed it was in support of “human compassion” and against “racism” and “Nazism”.

The demonstration took place in the wake of the murder of a local 17-year-old girl, Wilma Andersson, as well as several explosions in the nearby city of Borås.

Wilma had been missing since 13 November, with her 22-year-old boyfriend Ahmed Tishko having been taken into custody, suspected of her murder. After an extensive search for the teenager by hundreds of volunteers, police have now declared her deceased after discovering “a body part” belonging to her.

One of the Nordic Resistance Movement activists who took part in the action said of the demonstrators: “Their message is not something we tolerate, especially not when considering recent events in the area.”

During the demonstration, the torchlit march was met at its starting point by Resistance men who stood in the middle of the road with a banner reading “Stop the Population Replacement”. There was a minor confrontation when the demonstrators tried to push the activists and swipe at them with their torches, but they quickly calmed down and instead started going around the Resistance men.

The procession then deviated from its planned route and went onto a narrow road where the activists again succeeded in positioning themselves ahead of the demonstrators. The activists didn’t stop the march, but instead walked in front of it with their banner and communicated their message peacefully.

This bewildered and demoralised the demonstrators and caused their march to stop. The police were called to the scene, and many demonstrators grew tired and went home. From a total of approximately 200 attendees at the beginning, only 50 or so eventually reached the destination where speeches were to be held by people such as Lisa Dahlberg, a Social Democrat and government commissioner in the local Mark Municipality.

The police informed the Resistance Movement activists that they were suspected of harassment for protecting themselves against the demonstrators who pushed them and waved their torches at them. No one was suspected of a serious crime. One activist was arrested, but only because he refused to identify himself when the police wanted to charge him on suspicion of harassment.

Extremism breeds extremism and the Swedish government’s determination to replace ethnic Swedes with migrants was inevitably going to lead to the emergence of nationalist groups that are prepared to respond to acts of violence by immigrant groups with violence of their own. The Swedes now seem to have had enough of their virtue signalling, politically correct government’s kow-towing to Islamic extremists. What will happen? To paraphrase Enoch Powell, Like the Viking I seem to see the Baltic flowing with much blood.”

Sweden dystopia

Who Would Want To Destroy The World? More People Than You Might Think

October 27, 2019

As well as megalomaniac tyrants woth access to weapons of mass destruction, mad scientists busy genetically modifying viruses and bacteria in order to weaponise the air we breathe and the water we drink, the corporate greed that drives companies to fill our food and environment with toxic shite in their quest for bigger profits, we have social justice warriors calling for the genocide of ethnic Europeans (having completely failed to notice that they, themselves, are mostly of European extraction, and eco – warriors claiming that the only way ro “save the planet” is through the extinction of humanity. Obviously these somewhat less than bright sparks have never heard that old riddle that goes, 2if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it does it make a sound. Here’s one p-o-v on that, which suggests that vibrations in the air as would be caused by a tree hitting the ground cannot be called a sound unless they collide with the eardrum of a creature that knows what a sound is.

So who wants to destry humanity and do they have a supportable argument?

Who Wants To Destroy The World

More people than you might expect — and new technologies might give them the power to do it

Authored by Phil Torres, Originally published at

Photo: NurPhoto/Getty

FFor most of human history, the question of who would want to destroy the world didn’t much matter. The reason, of course, was that that no individual or group of humans could demolish civilization or cause our extinction. Our ancestors just didn’t have the tools: no amount of spears, arrows, swords, or catapults would have enabled them — even the most bloodthirsty and misanthropic — to have inflicted harm in every corner of the world.

This changed with the invention of the atomic bomb. While scholars often identify 1945 as the year that human self-annihilation became possible, a more accurate date is 1948 or 1949, since this is when the United States stockpiled enough nuclear weapons (about 100) to have initiated a hemisphere-spanning “nuclear winter.” (See this work in progress for why I’m focusing on 100 nuclear weapons as a threshold.) A nuclear winter occurs when soot from burning cities significantly reduces the amount of sunlight reaching Earth’s surface for a period of months or years, thereby causing temperatures to plummet and famines to ensue. Quite unsettlingly, it wasn’t until the 1980s — decades after we had enough nukes to blot out the sun — that the nuclear winter phenomenon was first identified, although lingering questions remain even today.

Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and might be more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

The U.S. monopoly on world-ending power didn’t last long: by 1953, the Soviet Union had likewise expanded to 100 weapons. Now there were two nations on Earth that could obliterate civilization. But again, this didn’t last very long. The United Kingdom joined the club of potential world-enders around 1962, China around 1971, and France around 1973, with Israel, Pakistan, and India becoming members of this club in the 2010s. Hence, in less than a century, the world went from containing zero actors capable of unilaterally destroying the world to eight.

This is a scary situation. Unfortunately, it’s getting worse — much worse. The reason is that states are no longer the only players in the game. Thanks to new technologies, nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and lone wolves are getting in on the action, too, and they might be a lot more willing than national governments to push the proverbial doomsday button.

My own research suggests that the percentage of people who would push a doomsday button, if it were placed within finger’s reach, is fairly small, but the absolute number is unacceptably high. Even a quick Google search seems to affirm this. Consider the following answers, taken from different online sources, to the question of whether one would destroy the world if one could (quoting typos and all):

“Yes. It is obvious that we gain nothing from living and there is a huge amount of human suffering that I find quite unjustifiable. The complete annihilation of the human race would be the greatest act of compassion ever.”

“Yes, we suck as a human race.”

“Yes. Because you all are assholes. And this is not a joke I would love to push something that ends humanity. I always thought about it and now there is the question about that topic and I am happy to say I want you all dead everyone single one of you fuckers. Please give me the chance to wipe out humanity.”

“My view is that Mankind is a plague… I vote to destroy mankind and let nature start over.”

“The human animal is the only evil animal in the animal kingdom. We destroy everything… I email the president weekly and beg him to push the button and stop the madness already.”

“In the short time we’ve been on this planet, humans have already destroyed so much. We destroy ecosystems, and kill off entire species of animals… The world would be better off without humans as a whole.”

Of course, saying something definitely isn’t the same as doing it. Even so, can we be fully certain that not a single person in the world would attempt to follow through on his or her annihilatory fantasies? One way to approach this question is to look for historical examples of groups or people who both expressed a desire to kill everyone and committed some terrible act or acts of violence. The combination of these two phenomena implies that such people would be willing to act on their omnicidal (meaning killing everyone) impulses and willingly, perhaps even eagerly, push a doomsday button. So are there such examples?

Unfortunately, yes. Lots of them. And they seem to fall into a handful of basic categories.

Eric Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

Consider the disturbing case of Eric Harris, the psychopathic mastermind behind the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. His journal is full of all sorts of genuinely horrifying, ghoulish fantasies. On several occasions, he explicitly mentions his burning desire to extinguish humanity. At one point. he writes: “If you recall your history the Nazis came up with a ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. Kill them all. Well, in case you haven’t figured it out yet, I say ‘KILL MANKIND’ no one should survive.”

Elsewhere, Harris mused, “I think I would want us to go extinct,” to which he added, “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible… I want to burn the world” and “I just wish I could actually DO this instead of just DREAM about it all.”

When Harris and Dylan Klebold, his partner in crime, perpetrated their massacre in Columbine, they were equipped with garden-variety weapons. Dangerous to be sure, but hardly capable of “burning the world.” Can there be any doubt, though, that if Harris — who was relatively intelligent and liked math and science — had had access to some of the advanced technologies of tomorrow, he would have, when committing suicide, tried to go out with a much bigger bang?

The Columbine massacre had a huge influence on later rampage shooters, some of whom also dreamt of omnicide. For example, in 2007, an 18-year-old Finnish student named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot several people at his school, which he also tried to burn down. Like Harris, he wrote about “a final solution” as “the death of the entire human race,” and described his massacre as “an operation against humanity with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.” Yet another rampage shooter from Finland, Matti Saari, wrote in his suicide note, “I hate the human race, I hate mankind, I hate the whole world, and I want to kill as many people as possible.”

Then, of course, there was Elliot Rodger, the incel psychopath who killed seven people and injured 14 in the 2014 Isla Vista killings. In a video shot one day before the rampage, he said in no uncertain terms: “I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species. If I had it in my power, I would stop at nothing to reduce every single one of you to mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. And rightfully so. You deserve to be annihilated. And I’ll give that to you.”

School shooters and other lone wolves have idiosyncratic motives, such as a misanthropic hatred of humanity, or a desire to retaliate against women for perceived romantic and sexual slights. Together, though, they comprise a relatively cohesive category of omnicidal actors, and a relatively unpredictable one at that.

Another type of omnicidal actor comes in the form of apocalyptic terrorists who believe that to save the world, it must first be destroyed. ISIS, arguably the largest and richest terrorist group in history, is a paradigm case. While some members of ISIS probably didn’t hold apocalyptic beliefs, the leadership most certainly did — and they made strategic decisions based on these beliefs. The man who essentially founded ISIS, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, believed that Islam’s version of Armageddon was about to unfold around the small Syrian town of Dabiq. Hence, the name of the group’s propaganda magazine, Dabiq. After the U.S. military killed al-Zarqawi in 2006, leadership of ISIS transferred to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, a fevered apocalypticist who insisted that the Islamic end-of-days messianic figure, the “Mahdi,” was about to appear in Iraq. Like al-Zarqawi, he based his strategy on his apocalyptic belief — and it backfired. He soon met his end at the hands of Western forces.

Both of these individuals really believed that the end was nigh, and that it was their duty to use violence — catastrophic violence, to be more specific — to bring about the apocalypse. ISIS members talked about acquiring nuclear weapons, releasing deadly pathogens, and building dirty bombs. I personally haven’t spoken to a single terrorism scholar who doesn’t think that ISIS would have gleefully pushed a “destroy-the-world” button, especially if Western forces were marching toward Dabiq.

But ISIS is far from the only apocalyptic group. Famously, the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo attempted to trigger Armageddon by releasing sarin in the Tokyo subway in 1995. Here in the U.S., more than a dozen hate groups subscribe to Christian Identity, an apocalyptic worldview that endorses the use of catastrophic violence as a means of triggering a “race war” that will initiate the end of the world. And one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, the Taiping Rebellion, involved an apocalyptic movement called the “Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.” This was led by a man named Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the brother of Jesus Christ, “commissioned by the Lord of Heaven to slay the devil-demons (Manchus) whose rule had brought ruin to China.”

A final type of omnicidal actor lingers within the outermost fringe of radical environmentalist, anarcho-primitivist, and Neo-Luddite ideologies. Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber, provides an example par excellence. Beginning in 1978, Kaczynski perpetrated numerous domestic terrorist attacks, killing three people and injuring 23 others. A former UC Berkeley mathematics professor and Harvard alumnus, Kaczynski didn’t wish for humanity to go extinct. Rather, he wanted to trigger a global revolution against industrial society, with the ultimate goal of causing its collapse. Kaczynski ultimately didn’t care whether his revolution would cause people to die, since in his utilitarian calculus the ends would justify the means. As Kaczynski wrote in 1995: “This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.”

In contrast, other actors in this category have explicitly embraced pro-extinction convictions. For example, the Gaia Liberation Front (GLF), an ecoterrorist group, holds as their mission “the total liberation of the Earth, which can be accomplished only through the extinction of the Humans as a species.” In advocating this, they argue that “if any Humans survive, they may start the whole thing over again. Our policy is to take no chances.”

How might they accomplish their omnicidal aims? GLF contends that bioengineering is “the specific technology for doing the job right of annihilating humanity — and it’s something that could be done by just one person with the necessary expertise and access to the necessary equipment.” They continue: “…genetically engineered viruses… have the advantage of attacking only the target species. To complicate the search for a cure or a vaccine, and as insurance against the possibility that some Humans might be immune to a particular virus, several different viruses could be released (with provision being made for the release of a second round after the generals and the politicians had come out of their shelters).”

Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

This parallels an anonymous article in the Earth First! Journal, published in 1989, meaning that this idea has been around for a while: “Contributions are urgently solicited for scientific research on a species specific virus that will eliminate Homo shiticus from the planet. Only an absolutely species specific virus should be set loose. Otherwise it will be just another technological fix. Remember, Equal Rights for All Other Species.”

While the most radical fringe of the environmentalist movement has avoided the limelight in recent years, some experts, such as the terrorism scholar Frances Flannery, expect a resurgence as climate and biodiversity crises worsen. This poses an obvious danger in a world replete with bullets and bombs; but it poses an existential threat in a world of cheap and easy gene editing. Technologies such as gene drives, digital-to-biological converters, and CRISPR-Cas9 are making it increasingly feasible to synthesize designer pathogens that could be far more devastating than anything found in nature.

Are there any solutions to the problems posed by virus-toting omnicidal maniacs? One hard-to-avoid — and completely terrifying — answer is mass surveillance. This could take the form of what the philosopher Jeremy Bentham called a “panopticon,” whereby the state (perhaps run by computer programs designed specifically to govern — a form of government called “algocracy”) monitors every action of its citizens. The obvious danger is that this could collapse into tyrannical totalitarianism, which itself constitutes an existential risk.

Another possibility involves what the science fiction writer, David Brin, dubs the “transparent society.” This would make surveillance egalitarian, so to speak: everyone would be able to see what everyone else is doing all the time, thereby enabling those watched to watch the watchers. Brin doesn’t argue that this is an ideal situation, only that it’s a better situation than one in which the state has all the power. Perhaps a total loss of privacy is the cost of existential security.

Alternatively, I have previously claimed that, in order to reduce the risks posed by malicious agents like those mentioned above, society should prioritize mitigating climate change and ecological destruction. Both phenomena are threat multipliers and threat intensifiers, which means that they’ll introduce new problems while making old problems even worse. Better environmental policies would lower the threat posed by ecoterrorists, whose fundamental complaint — “Humans are stupidly destroying the biosphere” — is scientifically accurate. Such policies would also decrease the number and severity of natural disasters, which could fertilize apocalyptic fervor among religious extremists. As the terrorism scholar Mark Juergensmeyer has remarked, “radical times will breed radical religion,” a hypothesis apparently supported by the rise of ISIS during the Syrian civil war.

Moving forward, people who care about human survival need to think hard not just about the various technologies that will become available, but about the types of actors who might try to use these technologies for catastrophic ill. The future of the human race could quite literally depend on it.



Liberals Scream Everything Is ‘Racist’. Maybe It’s Liberals That Are Racist

September 23, 2019

This occasional blog, like the rest of the Greenetth Digital Publishing organisation, considers its stance to be ‘classical liberal’, that is really liberal in its support of fairness, free speech and personal liberty and above all diversity of opinion and ideas and oppose such political sacred cows of the politically correct left as mass immigration and affirmative action. Strange then, perhaps, that we are often called fascists, far right extremists, and racists by the authoritarian, illiberal, hypocritical far left extremists who are more concerned with virtue signalling than with true equality, diversity and personal liberty.

A recent question on Quora, a Q & A site that has unfortunately turned into a liberal echo chamber asked, ”

This answer stuck me as something that needed saying. It is republished here because we believe the site moderators at Quora will not let it stand for long, their usual approach to moderation being to respond unthinkingly to complaints about posts that do not conform to the politically correct narrative. So with full acknowledgement to Mr. Brown and Ms. McQuillan and a raised finger to Quora here is a very revealing description of why uncontrolled mass immigration is to compatible with the values of European and American civilisation.
Published under Fair Use terms in the public interest.
Charlie Brown
Charlie Brown, former Airline Pilot (1968-2000)

Africa’s problems
Liberal bigots
Liberal hate driver
Racism truth
Politically correct
“I’m, Nationalist Not Racist,” Voter Says As Sweden Faces A Historic Election Upset
Racism truth
‘Lord’ Sugar Sugar called ‘racist’ for Senegal World Cup team tweet (but it was funny)
Fascist Left Latest: Diversity Of Thought Is Racist!



The road to ruin

July 13, 2019

This is, I believe, an important piece and should be read by all who value liberty and free speech. The argument relates to the organised attack by Social Justice Warriors on any content posted online that does not conform to their world view and to the cowardice and political bias of platform providers who tamely cave in to the bullying of that noisy minority and remove content expressing truly diverse points of view.

The Road To Ruin was orininally posted by Aragmar on on 29 May, 2019

The Road To Ruin

Many of you might not agree with what I am about to say, but I have to say it once and for all. There are some people who calmly stand by and continue buying Politically Correct(TM) content created by hardcore SJW ideologues while accidentally mentioning “Why/How is this happening to my favorite IP?” There is the vain hope deep inside, that some of those polished turds that you buy might still “be as good as it once was”, while new, original content creators, who go out of their way to actually stand up against this degeneracy are barely scraping by. Do you see anything wrong in this picture?

No, it isn’t the SJW’s who are ruining your hobbies and favorite game/movie franchises, or at least not entirely their fault – it is you, who continuously spend your hard earned cash and feed those intellectual parasites. There are plenty of people who complain about our horrendous current state of affairs concerning the entertainment industry. Films, books, comics, and games are constantly under attack, by an unrelenting mob of angry and underachieving people, who hate themselves, others and want to destroy everything that is even remotely fun, making all of us equally miserable.

Let us examine this “hypothetical” situation:

– A person surfs the web, notices new author/s who had created something original, be it a game, book or a comic and it is plain as daylight that this new creation goes against the PC religion. The person then admires that new creation, maybe even comments on how brave the author/s were to stand up against the status quo… and then casually walks by. A week, or month passes and the new polished turd comes out of the bowels of Hollywood/EA etc. The person starts protesting as loudly as they possibly can, but the damage is done and none of the SJW cultists care about them complaining about it. They did their job – another day, another franchise “corrected”. Onwards they go bravely in search of more words to be triggered by, offended, claim higher victim status all the while snorting pixie dust and chasing unicorns.

The person suddenly remembers, oh wait, there was something very similar and maybe even better than this shit I spend my money on. They scour the net for days, yet to no avail – that new and original content that they had passed by is nowhere to be found. Weeks later they luckily found a copy and hungrily devour it, instantly realizing that despite its somewhat lackluster wrapping, it is a good product. Best of all – there is not a shred of the dreaded PC religion in it! Quickly they feverishly continue searching, asking friends and others for the next chapter/book or part of the game, only to find out there won’t be one. Never… The author/s were either pushed out of the platform, silenced, censored or bullied out of existence, yet had they received some support, any support, things might have been different. The person laments for a while the tragic loss, of what could’ve been perhaps an alternative to their long-lost, destroyed by the SJW cultists favorite IP. Probably vows to change their ways and support the next new original content that they stumble upon, realizing that those author/s who are willing to fight the uphill battle against the establishment are few. Fewer even are the individuals, who actually manage to pull their scarce resources, and against all odds actually, put a product out.

And now let me ask you a question – do you know such a person? If yes, please, for the love of all that is geeky, nerdy and FUN, do not be like that person!

The more of us who vote with their wallets, the more will that massive, angry mob of fun-hating SJW cultists will lose their backing. Next time when you stumble upon something new and exciting book, game or comic – Share it! Share, with as many people you can, and if not buy one for yourself giving the creator/s the life-sustaining support that they desperately need, others might. Remember, the cancer of Political Correctness(TM) and its ideologues the SJW cultists are only strong because of OUR inaction, or actions.

And if you, continue backing products/creators who are known to be heavily influenced or outright sullied by their incessant push for mass indoctrination – don’t cream afterwards “They are destroying my beloved franchise!”

The inevitable outcome of politically correct thinking in politics

Thousands March to Save the Internet from EU Censorship Regulations

Leaked Documents Reveal Facebook’s Biased, Convoluted Censorship Policies

Is Google Becoming Orwell’s Ministry Of Truth?

Project Veritas Releases Email Leaked By Google Mole Approving Censorship Of Conservative Writers

Facebook Steps Up Censorship, Bans Populist News Sites

Digital Gangsters

The Jackboots Are Coming: Police State Democracy and the Politics of Fear

June 20, 2019

We have seen it in Britain, in the way the elected members of our parliament have tried to block our leaving the EU and overturn the democratically expressed will of the people who voted to disassociate the country from the undemoctatic and increasingly authoritatian European Union, in the way voices of campaigners against the appeasement of Islamic extremists by national and local government, such as Tommy Robinson, have been suppressed, in the way laws are applied differently to certain ethinic and religious groups than it is to the European and Christian / Jewish / Hindu / Secular groups, we have seen it in the EU, in the way the Brussels bureaucracy tried to prevent the democratically elected coalition of League and Five Star forming a government and the way anti – EU governments elected in Greece and Portugal have been disrupted by EU actions, the the way the results of referenda in France and Netherlands on the European Constitution and in Ireland,  on the Lisbon Treaty have been overturned.

We have had plenty of warnings, now people are writing content like the article below will enough people wake up to what is going on in our world?

The Jackboots Are Coming: Mass Arrests, Power Grabs and The Politics Of Fear
By John W Whitehead – The Rutherford Institute

Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.” ― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-loving people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

It works the same way every time.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence and illegal immigration have been convenient ruses used to terrorized the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Case in point: on June 17, the same day President Trump announced that the government would be making mass arrests in order to round up and forcibly remove millions of illegal immigrants—including families and children—from the country, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Gamble v. United States that placed the sovereignty (i.e., the supreme power or authority) of federal and state governments over that of the citizenry, specifically as it relates to the government’s ability to disregard the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.

At first glance, the two incidents—one relating to illegal immigration and the other to the government’s prosecutorial powers—don’t have much to do with each other, and yet there is a common thread that binds them together.

That common thread speaks to the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”

Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore.

Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.

So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.”

So you see, the two incidents on June 17 were not hugely significant in and of themselves.

Trump’s plan to carry out mass arrests of anyone the government suspects might be an illegal immigrant, and the Supreme Court’s recognition that the government can sidestep the Constitution for the sake of expediency are merely more of the same abuses that have been heaped upon us in recent years.

Yet these incidents speak volumes about how far our republic has fallen and how desensitized “we the people” have become to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of our government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?

They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.

We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what she has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps weren’t kept secret from the German people. They were well-publicized. As The Guardian reports:

The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust… They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand. They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters… The reports, in newspapers and magazines all over the country were phases in a public process of “desensitisation” which worked all too well, culminating in the killing of 6m Jews….

Likewise, the mass of ordinary Americans are fully aware of the Trump Administration’s efforts to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.

These mass arrests of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant may well be the shot across the bow.

You see, it’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to lock large swaths of the population up in detention centers unless or until they can prove that they are not only legally in the country to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to similar treatment unless or until they can prove that they are in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not guilty of having committed some crime or other.

It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

You may be innocent of wrongdoing now, but when the standard for innocence is set by the government, no one is safe. Everyone is a suspect, and anyone can be a criminal when it’s the government determining what is a crime.

Remember, the police state does not discriminate.

At some point, once the government has been given the power to do whatever it wants—the Constitution be damned—it will not matter whether you’re an illegal immigrant or a citizen by birth, a law-breaker or someone who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates. Government jails will detain you just as easily whether you’ve obeyed every law or broken a dozen. And government agents will treat you like a suspect, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, simply because they have been trained to view and treat everyone like potential criminals.

Eventually, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late.

All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—started out as a seemingly well-meaning plan to address some problem in society that needed a little extra help.

Be careful what you wish for: you will get more than you bargained for, especially when the government’s involved.

Remember, nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

The war on immigration is turning out to be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

As commentator Shaun Kenney observed:

What civil liberties are you willing to surrender in the apprehension of 12 million people? Knock and drags? Detention centers? Checkpoints? House-to-house searches? Papers, please? Will we be racially profiling folks to look for or are we talking about people of Chinese… Indian… Irish… Polish… Italian… people-who-might-look-like-you descent as well? If the federal government makes a 1% rounding error and accidentally deports an American citizen, that’s 120,000 Americans… what means will be used to restore their rights? Who will remunerate them for their financial loss? Restore their lost homes? Personal property? Families? … What happens when these means are turned against some other group of undesirables in America by a president who does not share your political persuasion, but can now justify the act based on previous justifications?

We are all at risk.

The law of reciprocity applies here. The flip side of that Golden Rule, which calls for us to treat others as we would have them treat us, is that we shouldn’t inflict on others what we wouldn’t want to suffer ourselves.

In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to be forcibly separated from you, caged and lost—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how compelling a case the government makes for it or how fervently you believe in the cause.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

Indeed, when the government is allowed to operate as a law unto itself, the rule of law itself becomes illegitimate. As Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’ It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

In other words, there comes a time when law and order are in direct opposition to justice.

Isn’t that what the American Revolution was all about?

Finally, if anyone suggests that the government’s mass immigration roundups and arrests are just the government doing its job to fight illegal immigration, don’t buy it.

This is not about illegal immigration. It’s about power and control.

It’s about testing the waters to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.

It’s about the rise of an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government misconduct and power grabs in the so-called name of national security.

It’s about how much tyranny “we the people” will tolerate before we find our conscience and our voice.

It’s about how far we will allow the government to go in its efforts to distract and divide us and turn us into a fearful, easily controlled populace.

Ultimately, it’s about whether we believe—as the Founders did—that our freedoms are inherently ours and that the government is only as powerful as we allow it to be. Freedom does not flow from the government. It was not given to us, to be taken away at the will of the State. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.

We must get back to this way of thinking if we are to ever stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it’s time to draw that line in the sand.

The treatment being meted out to anyone that looks like an illegal immigrant is only the beginning. Eventually we will all be in the government’s crosshairs for one reason or another.

This is the start of the slippery slope.

Martin Niemöller understood this. A Lutheran minister who was imprisoned and executed for opposing Hitler’s regime, Niemoller warned:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Trump catches attention of CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral

Donald Trump is portrayed as a clown by mainstream media and his combover is the silliest I have ever seen. Still, he’s a billionaie so I don’t suppose he gives a flying fuck what The Daily Stirrer thinks of him. Not that we think he is all bad, anyone who attacks Obama’s global naziism trade deals, TTIP and TPP mush have some good points.

Prepare For The Worst Case Scenario
An article on the cashless society our political and corporate overlords are pushing for proposes that as far as privacy and individual liberty are concerned, what is being planned right now in the political capitals and financial centres of the world is the worst case scenarion. An all digital financial system would mean the end of privacy, nothing you bought or traded would be your own business any more …

How Mainstream Media And The Major Political Parties Are Making Sure Voters Do not Hear The Voices Of Politics’ Most Powerful Critics
As the General Election campaign starts to heat up, we try to shift focus away from the squabbling between Conservative and Labour about who can make the most promises they have no intention of keeping and to the real issues concerning jobs, social breakdown , mass immigration, and loss of national sovereignty.

US Presidents Of The Past warned Against Secret, Shadow Government.
By now it should be obvious that peacemake, joybringer and putative aquatic pedestrian Barack Hussein Obama was never really in charge of the US Government. Whatever Obama said would happen, all the American government’s policies ensured the opposit would happen. The embedded article thows some light on how the US government really works

The American Political System Is “Not A Democracy Or Constitutional Republic” – Thiel
The state of democracy in the USA has become a hot topic of conversation in American business circles in recent years. While President Barack Hussein Obama, not so much a man as an ego on long skinny legs, has increasingly been inclined to rule by executive order in the manner of a despot or tyrant, even Obama’s fiercest critics have to admit the American electoral system seems increasingly capable of delivering only political paralysis …

The New World order Pope Wants You To Pray For One World Religion
The Marxist, globalist, Soros apparatchik currently posing as head of the Catholic faith wants to scrap the Catholic Church. He didn’t say that in so many words but he has called on Catholics to pray for the creation of a world religion (because love and peace) which would embrace

Who Runs America, The White House Or The Shadow Government?
Reports of President Barack Obama’s meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit over the weekend do not look right in the context of yet another blitz of provocative rhetoric from The Pentagon and the Department of Defence towards Moscow. In view of the USA’s constant push towards all out war with Russia, one has to ask who is in control: Obama or the generals?

The New World Order
New World Order omnibus
The Daily Stirrer

Theresa May’s great Brexit mistake

May 31, 2019

British Prime Minister Theresa May has set her resignation date, a long-overdue result of her failure to deliver on Brexit. She leaves quite a mess for whoever fills the spot of Conservative Party leader in her wake. The party is facing potential political obliteration if it cannot patch itself back together and offer a united vision — including a realistic and executable plan for the U.K.’s divorce from the European Union.

May’s difficulties with Brexit were, mind you, just one of her shortfalls; general incompetence seemed to follow her like a cartoon black cloud, and she harbored a lack of fealty to free-market principles which left her with not much to offer Britons aside from not being Jeremy Corbyn, which could only take her party so far. But there is no question that it was her fumbling of Brexit which did her in.

Her main problem concerning Brexit came down to more than simply her choice of approach or stylistic ubiquities. It was more philosophical than that: In her heart, she didn’t really believe in it, putting her in closer communion with the Continental establishment from whom she was allegedly trying to negotiate a severance than with the majority of her own party, and indeed her own people.

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

Among the political Left (this is particularly true in Europe and gaining traction in the U.S.), the desire for leveling extends beyond local economic and social conditions to include the world stage. The utopian pursuit of homogeneity is difficult to reconcile with the concept of national sovereignty, explaining the disdain for patriotism as an antiquated relic of a brutal past. Borders are just so, well, bourgeois.

Modern technology has, of course, helped accelerate the erosion of those borders. The internet, air travel, satellite communications, and even the automobile have breached most of the obstacles to trade and travel, smoothing out the sharp edges of distinction between peoples.

But those distinctions have not been erased altogether, and the modernist dilution of the concept of the nation has not eliminated the basic conditions which created it. Nations are more than simply arrangements hammered out by, say, the Congress of Vienna, but are natural outgrowths of peoples tied by common geographic, linguistic, cultural, historic, political, and other bonds.

Conservatism of the kind May was supposed to be representing recognizes this basic reality, that patriotism and national identity are indispensable to the maintenance of a social order. Roger Scruton, Britain’s greatest living political philosopher, writes that “it is allegiance which defines the condition of a society, and which constitutes society as something greater than the ‘aggregate of individuals’ that the liberal mind perceives,” and elsewhere that “territorial loyalty … is at the root of all forms of government where law and liberty reign supreme.”

This is something that seems to still be widely understood, almost subconsciously, inherently, and in a visceral sense. Brits voted for Brexit precisely because they are Brits, as distinguished from French, or Germans, or what have you, united by those same ties of land, language, history, culture, and so much more. The ideal of self-government — a concept which, after all, has its genesis on the British Isles — is incompatible with submission to foreign entities, even ones as relatively benign (if economically and bureaucratically constricting) as the EU.

The rise and increasing success of nationalist parties throughout Continental Europe, witnessed again in last weekend’s EU elections, can be partly explained as a perverse reaction to this forced dissolution of borders and national identity. If patriotism is officially discarded and derided as anachronistic, it should not be unexpected that an ideologized overcorrection could take its place. Disregarding human nature and history bears consequences.

May suffered the consequences of discarding the principles her own party has defended for decades, and if it’s not careful, that party may suffer them with her. It appears likely that Boris Johnson or someone of similar mind will inherit the wreckage. They will face the predictable and ubiquitous challenge: how to maximize the benefits of free trade without giving up too large a degree of political sovereignty. If the next U.K. leader pursues a more direct and realistic exit from the EU, America should be available to help: partly because it is the right thing to do for our greatest ally and partly because further denials of reality could result in decidedly worse consequences.

Kelly Sloan (@KVSloan25) is a Denver-based public affairs consultant, columnist, and the energy and environmental policy fellow at the Centennial Institute.

Let Them Eat Cake, Drink Booze and Smoke Ciggies Says Libertarian Politician

May 11, 2019

Smoke, Drink And Eat Whatever You Want: Norway’s Public Health Minister

11 May 2019

For years we have been lectured and harangued by the bansturbators, (that is, the people who get off on stopping us doing things that give us pleasure,) their fingers wagging furiously in our faces as they tell us smoking will kill us, even looking at an alcpholic drink will destroy our livrers, a pinch of salt will cause heart attacks, strokes and acute asplaxification of the nurdlers, a cream cake or two will make us obese, a steak dinner or a burger will give us cancer, and driving our cars will destroy the planet. So it was a pleasure to come across a news item about a politician who believes adults can be trusted to behave sensibly and left make their own choices in life.

Norway’s new public health minister, Sylvi Listhaug is such a politician, she believes that adults don’t need the constant lectures and admonishments from government about what they put into their bodies – telling Norway’s state broadcaster NRK that “people should be allowed to smoke, drink and eat as much red meat as they like,” according to a report in the snowflakes favourite journal, the New York Times.

norwegian health minister sylvie listhaug
Norwegian Health Secretary Sylvie Listhaug – Picture:

“The government may provide information, but I think people in general know what is healthy and what is not,” she added.

The interview – published a few days into her new role as head of the ministry, was “dotted with the kind of sharp, controversial comments Ms. Listhaug, deputy leader of the right-wing, anti-immigration Progress Party, is known for,” reports the Times – which promptly goes on to disparage the conservative politician for actually believing in individual freedom and personal responsibility, two of the basic principles of real liberalism, (we all know people who ‘identify’ as liberals do so only because hir sounds cuddlier and less threaening that if they were honest and called themselves fascistic authoritarians.

Ms Listhaug is no stranger to controversy, as immigration minister she made headlines in 2017 with disparaging comments about Sweden, saying that Norway should not become like its neighbor, which was accepting more refugeesnd African despite having experiences a huge rise in crome rates, especiall in sex crimed by middle – eastern a males against European women since abolishing border controls and letting all comers claim residency in the country. Last year, she resigned as justice minister after comments about terrorists
(which were in fact true,)
she made on Facebook threatened to bring down the government.

This week, opposition politicians and health advocates suffered collective apoplexy as they tried to outdo each other in denouncing in the strongest terms Ms. Listhaug’s comments on habits that are hyped as major risk factors for many serious diseases, all of which are big money spinners for Big Pharma

The secretary general of Norway’s Cancer Society, Anne Lise Ryel was shocked by the comments – saying in a statement: “I fear that this will set public health efforts back for decades, and that this will compromise the general understanding among Norwegians of the health consequences of tobacco and alcohol use.” It is notable that a way of preventing cancer (and some maverick doctors say a cure,) has been available since the 1960s but no public health charity or government department in the democratic world is promoting it. Could that be, perhaps, that no expensive drugs, therapies or surgery are involved, only self discipline.

Ryel has called for Listhaug to be removed from her post, adding that “she seems to lack understanding of what public health really means and what her role as minister in that area should be.” Perhaps she understands more than Ryel admits. This publication knows public health is about shovelling taxpayers’ money into Big Pharma’s coffers.

Listhaug stuck to her guns, fireing back in a Friday email to the Times, writing: “The government believes that people have to take responsibility for their own life, but the government has to make sure that everyone can make healthy and informed choices.”

“The number of daily smokers has declined sharply since 2000,” she added. “This confirms that the Norwegian tobacco policy and control strategy works.”

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2017, 11 percent of Norwegians aged 15 or older smoked daily, one of the lowest rates among the group’s 34 member nations. Norway has also had the steepest decrease of any of the countries since 2000, when the equivalent figure was 32 percent.

The Eurosceptoc Progress Party has been a junior partner in Norway’s center-right governing coalition since 2013. Its rise to prominence created unease, coming just two years after a far-right, anti-Muslim extremist who had once belonged to the party killed 77 people in a murderous rampage. It;s rapid rise has accompanied a crime wave in the immigrant communities of Noway’s cities, with turf wars between rival immigrant gangs for control of the drugs and sex trades often erupting into violence on the streeets of the capital city Oslo.

Governments around the world have stepped up campaigns to fight unhealthy habits usually be imposing punitive taxation. France recently told people not to drink every day; a soda tax in Britain has helped lower sugar levels in some drinks, and Australia’s graphic warnings on cigarette packages, considered a success, are being copied in other countries. –New York Times While governments claim success for their authoritarian attacks on personal liberty, the rise in contraband goods smuggled from nations were taxes on tobacco and alcohol are low or zero has risen astronomically and in Europe there have been cases of small factories being set up producing low quality cigarettes made with cheap tobacco in in healthy conditions, which are paked in fake reproductions of leading brand packaging and passed off as the real thing.

Listhaug also said that smokers in Norway are made to feel like “pariahs,” and that she would not be the “moral police” in government – echoing comments made by Austria’s far-right defense of freedom of choice in their oppostion of antismoking legislation.

Listhaug is a former regular smoker who told NRK that she is now just a social smoker.


MORE on Food Health Fascism

Food fascists and the obesity pandemic
Big Food Cartel Aims For Monopoly
Food comtaminated with toxic chemicals by food companies
Foood, health and cooking skills
Food crisis down to control freakery rather than shortages
Food giants promote bad diets
Food science fraud
GM crops will not feed the world
If GM foods are dangerous show us the evidence the Scienceology cult said. Here it is.
Health: Food and heart disease, the truth.
Big food lie, saturated fat not dangerous
Using fake science to sell GM foods.
UN Report Says Small-Scale Organic Farming Only Way To Feed The World

Trans Pacific Partnership, Monsanto and Global Food Dominance
Big Smack – Junk Food Addict Splatters Boyfriend
The friendly face of junk food
Another dodgy meat in processed food scandal rocks government.
Supersize Snacks (make Scooby Snack like like health food)

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Why ‘Hate Speech’ Should Not Be Criminalised

May 5, 2019
There is a common conception among those on the left of the political spectrum that only people who support the ‘far right’ are challenging efforts to criminalise so called ‘hate speech.’ Just as they dismiss anybody who questions the theory that Carbon Dioxide from human activity is driving climate chance as ‘climate deniers’ and people who raise the human rights issues surrounding laws to make vaccination manadtory as anti – vaxxers the left, having no cogent arguments with which to oppose their critics, resort to identity politics.
I have written many times defending the right to free speech and experessing opposition to the use of ‘hate speech’ to suppress honest and justified criticism of certain groups in society and ideologically driven agendas, and read hundreds of articles and blogs opposing this fraudulent criminalisation of free speech, but the argument below is one of the best I have seen.
Matt Taylor
by Matt Taylor, first posted on Quora, 1 May 2019
It’s not just “right-wing people” that think this way, dozens of popular lefty intellectuals have come out and spoke against criminalizing discourse.


April 25, 2019

Extinction’s Extinct! (Or is it?)

I’ve been (reluctantly) following the news of the recent London protests by a group calling themselves “Extinction Rebellion.” There have been similar protests in Australia, and maybe in other places too.

Here’s what I got from their website:

(1) “Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.”

Now, I’m all in favo(u)r of government telling the truth! (Which it almost never does). But the truth is, that the greenies have gone way beyond sanity. To anyone who looks into the matter, the green allegations – and the mantra “human CO2 emissions cause catastrophic climate change” in particular – are fraudulent. They’re right that there’s urgency for change; but wrong about its direction.

(2) “Government must act now to reduce biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.”

Again, they are right and yet wrong. If government should act “to reduce biodiversity loss”, it ought to act to protect the most endangered species on this planet – we civilized human beings! The greenies and their political soulmates have already taken away most of our rights, freedoms and earned prosperity. And now they are closing in on us, and trying to destroy what remains of our civilization.

Would they destroy a termite hill? If yes, how would they explain themselves to the individual termites? If no, where do they get any right to destroy our termite hill?

(3) Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.

Umm, well, err… “I’m the king of your castle.”

* * *

It seems that the driving force behind this movement is the idea that human beings are driving (no pun intended) all other species to extinction. According to received wisdom, there is about one species on this planet for every thousand human individuals. And therefore, about one in a thousand of us must be guilty of extinguishing, or at least trying to extinguish, a species.

So, I thought I’d put forward some questions to ask those that accuse you or me of this “crime.”

  1. Name a species, in whose extinction I played a part.
  2. Describe that species. In detail.
  3. Clearly differentiate that species from any other similar species.
  4. Give the date on which the species became extinct.
  5. Prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there were live examples of the species within the 10 years preceding your extinction date. If possible, exhibit a specimen.
  6. Prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the species had died out before your claimed extinction date.
  7. State the causes of that extinction.
  8. State what I as an individual did, and on what date, that contributed to that extinction.
  9. Prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that what I did, on that date, contributed to the extinction of the species you named.
  10. Prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have never played any part in extinguishing, or attempting to extinguish, any species. (If you can’t, you have no right to prosecute me.)


For those foolhardy souls who want to continue to read my outpourings, I will continue to put all my writings, both serious and less so, on my bloguette: I think the commenting facility still works, if you want to drop by.



The problem is, one side of the argument is disingenuous concerning their actual agenda and goals. “Climate change” is not about saving the earth or species of much else… it’s about statism and global socialist statism at that.

Climate change and the various accommodating disasters, attributed and predicted, are simply the vehicle chosen to implement statism. It has evolved to for that purpose (global warming –> climate change) and will continue to do so as needed.

The greens are the “Party”.
1) Governments must push the “truth” of the Party and nothing else. It goes without saying that government should surprises anything the Party does not acknowledge as “truth”.

2) Government must implement ALL the policies the Party demands. It goes without saying that policies of others should be ignored or at least take a back seat.

3) Government must acquiesce all power to the Party; agreeing to obey it at all times and without question.

Sound like any Party or any ideology we’ve seen before?





    In some ways, I think it’s closer to fascist than socialist, Lynn. For example, their hatred of older people. (Probably because they know that older people have better bullshit meters than the young, so are far more likely to see through their ruses).

  • Reply




    Probably because they know that older people have better bullshit meters than the young, so are far more likely to see through their ruses.

    There does seem to be an exception to every rule though. 🙂 This thread being a perfect example.

  • Reply




    Right you are, Dino; we have to protect our environment. I’m sorry, I’ll read that again:

    We have to protect our environment. The environment for human beings. That’s exactly one of the points I made in the article.

  • Reply




    Neil – we are totally dependent on a complex ecosystem. It is resilient but is now being dramatically changed by our activities.
    It is in our interests to respect and maintain the ecosystem that provides our very existence.
    Nature is worthy of respect and nurturing.

  • Reply



    A thought on this point Neil, though I know it has been raise by myself and hundreds of others many thousands of times:
    “human CO2 emissions cause catastrophic climate change”
    Can any of th Warmageddonist ‘experts’ or ‘scientists’ explain how nature differentites

    between CO2 emitted from human activity and CO2 emitted by natural phenomena such as photosynthesis, volcanic activity, termite farts (apparently the little buggers are always farting and as there are so many of them in a colony it adds up to a significant amount of CO2,) or decaying matter?
    The only answers I have seen to this question have been along the lines of, “You’re not a scientist so you’re not capable of understanding the science.”
    To which I point out that science is an indefinite object thus ‘the science’ is ungrammatical.

  • Reply



    “…The only answers I have seen to this question have been along the lines of, “You’re not a scientist so you’re not capable of understanding the science….”

    To which I inevitably reply: Show me your scientific credentials.

  • Reply





    Yes indeed, termites do account for a significant proportion of world-wide CO2 emissions.

    Oh, but I’d disagree with you on one thing. There is, of course, no difference at all between CO2 emitted from human activity and CO2 emitted by natural phenomena. That’s because human activity is a natural phenomenon! When greenies moan that “we” and the things we do are un-natural, a blight on the planet or some other scold du jour, I tend to reply: “Yes, you’re right. You are un-natural, or a blight on the planet (or whatever).”

  • Reply



    I’m only repeating what I’ve been told Neil, and I pass it on in good faith as the people who told me this said they were scientists, a breed who cannot be wrong apparently. I’ll have to break off there before my tongue gets permanently stuck in my cheek.

  • Edit
  • Reply



    BTW making species extinct is quite hard, I have worked on engineering the extinction of slugs in my garden for 19 years and there are just as many now as when I started. Life has a knack of surviving.

  • Reply






    The language and tone sounds eerily similar to the proclamations of the early Soviets. I meant that in the political sense, but also purely in the linguistic sense. It shares the same declarative tone, the same assertion of absolutist authority and the ever present shield of the common good. I’d bet our friend Webmaster could translate and spoken in Russian this would probably very closely resemble something uttered by a pioneering commissar of the people’s revolution.

  • Reply




    I, too, caught the echo of “Pravda” in their use of the word “truth.”

  • Reply

    Well Neil you are wrong on this one. You do not seem to grasp the enormity of the problem at all.
    All 8 billion of us on this planet are guilty of causing mass extinctions and climate change.
    You eat. You use machines. You live in a house and use power.
    That means you are requiring polluting energy production, transport, mining and destroying habitat.
    The sheer numbers of humans on the planet is the biggest problem. You are one of them.
    Individually none of us have wiped out a single species. Collectively we have wiped out many thousands.
    Individually none of us are capable of saving a species. Collectively we can.
    I fear you just don’t get it. I am afraid that your list of questions is puerile.
    Nature is wonderful. Life is incredible. It should be protected and nurtured.

  • Reply



    And unicorns were wonderful. Their feces had remarkable medicinal properties. Pygmy tribes from sub-Saharan Africa hunted them to extinction, thereby depriving caucasians of the health benefits. I DEMAND reparations!

  • Reply




    An interesting theory about the unicorns. I had thought they died out because they made a mutual suicide pact with the honest politicians. But I’ll defer to your superior knowledge of the science of unicorniology.

  • Reply



    Opher, if you do not accept the idea of individual responsibility, there is little point trying to argue with you about anything. We all have individual responsibilities towards those around us – such as not attacking other people, not stealing their resources, and so on. But a collective responsibility can only exist when someone has agreed, by word or deed, to take on such a responsibility – for example, by taking on a management job with responsibility for what other people do, or by having children.

    If it really were, as you say, that “the sheer numbers of humans on the planet is the problem,” then I am not responsible for any part of this “problem” at all, since I have never had children. You, on the other hand, have had four children, not to mention grandchildren. You are among those responsible for this (putative) problem, I am not; you should be paying to “solve” it, I should not.

    To call my list of questions “puerile” is a cop-out. It’s a typical ad hominem from someone unable to put forward any proper argument. To use a metaphor, it is playing the man, not the ball. I, and I suspect most others here, can see this ruse for what it is, an admission that you have no case.

    As to “nature is wonderful,” yes, we can agree on something. And human beings are part of nature. So, are human beings not wonderful, too?

    see more

  • Reply



    Of course I accept individual responsibility. But even in largish numbers we cannot individually make any difference.
    The food you eat comes from land that was cleared from natural habitat. It was sprayed with herbicides and pesticides.
    The metal in your home and possessions was mined and processed using large amounts of energy and creating pollution.
    The plastics came from oil.
    The power you use comes from power stations.
    Just by living you are adding to the destruction of habitats, the pollution of the environment and the death of many organisms.
    Bit by bit trees are cut down, areas cleared, streams polluted and culverted, hedges scrubbed up.
    With 8 billion people the effects build up. No one person is responsible. It is the accumulated result of 8 billion.
    You are every bit as guilty as every one of us.
    No one person can do much about it. It has to be a collective response of all of us.
    To turn a blind eye and pretend it isn’t happening is foolish and morally irresponsible.
    I wrote you a little story.

    see more

  • Reply



    But Neil,
    Think of all the new life forms we are (or may be) creating with all our environmental toxins, and all the plant life stimulated by increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are those little microorganisms that feed off plastic, and all those mutant life forms from radioactivity.

    It occurred to me that no one seems to comment on all the ways we are dependent on the fossil fuel industry. People think only of cars and power plants, but that is just the beginning. All transportation machines–trucks, trains, airplanes, ships, helicopters, drones, subways, buses–to name a few, run on petroleum products. Plastic is a petroleum product. Fabrics like acrylic are petroleum products. Agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, are based on petroleum. Agricultural equipment like tractors. Construction materials and equipment, like bulldozers and backhoes.

    It amazes me how dependent we’ve become on petroleum products in such a short time The Green New Dealers should do a little homework to better understand the comprehensive nature of their agendas.

    CO2 and CH4 (methane) are part of the natural life cycle for the planet as a whole. Animals (including the human ones) breathe 02 and emit CO2 and CH4. Life is an organizing force, defying entropy. When an animal dies, and begins to decay, these molecules are released. Plants are also organizing forces, absorbing CO2 and releasing O2. When plants die and begin to decay, they emit CO2 and CH4 as part of the decomposition cycle. Because the components are elements, they cannot be created or destroyed, just re-arranged in different combinations.

    I know this is obvious, but it’s basic science that many people seem to have forgotten. CO2 comprises less than one percent of the atmosphere.

    see more

  • Reply



    Good points, Katharine. Leading me on to the thought that every species extinction represents an opportunity, a habitat for a new species. Nature is dynamic, not static as Opher and his green buddies would have us believe.

    As to the green-new-dealers, I think you underestimate the nastiness and the underhanded nature of what they are doing. The green agenda ultimately seeks to destroy – not just to curb, but to destroy the industrial civilization which has brought us human beings so many benefits over the last 200 or so years. I’ll remind you of a quote from Maurice Strong, first director of the UN environment program: “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

    As I see it, all those that peddle the green agenda are enemies of civilization, and so enemies of humanity. They are traitors to our civilization, and they deserve to be expelled from it and denied all its benefits.

  • Reply





    Aah but Katharine – all of those things can be made using genetically modified bacteria in vats. All those machines can run on alternative fuel. Fabrics, plastics and sweeteners can all be made efficiently through microbes.
    We have no need for oil.
    The age of fossil fuels is over. We’re in the death-throes.

  • Reply

    Here’s an article that you maybe need to read Neil. It might even chill your blood and waken some degree of empathy for the creatures we are so wantonly and cruelly destroying in such a barbarous fashion.
    I travelling to South America a few years back. I read the tales from the whalers from a couple of centuries back. It was teeming with life. They killed everything and took tons of fresh meat aboard. They went to the breeding grounds and slaughtered the young for fun. What is left is a barren vestige of what it had been two hundred years ago.
    But of course that is not true is it?

  • Reply



    Opher, I skimmed the article, and it’s just a bunch of polemics. If some people in the Amazon a hundred or more years ago did unnecessarily bad things to turtles, well, they shouldn’t have. But that’s not my problem, because I’m not one of them – and I haven’t benefited from what they did.

    You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that the only thing you can possibly convince me with in a matter like this is evidence. Clear and specific evidence of bad things I have done to wildlife. You claim to be an atheist, but you are behaving like a crazy religionist – wanting to use “the collective” to browbeat or even force other people into following your particular religion.

  • Reply




    Neil, Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons? You should be.
    The gist of the idea is that unrestricted freedom to exploit a “common” resource will inevitably lead to the ruination of the resource. While your individual “contribution” to the ruination is small, the collective contribution is what causes the ruination.
    This is NOT a religious concept; it is a fact about the way the world works, as has been demonstrated repeatedly through time. And its implications are ominous environmentally as we are seeing in the case of global warming, ocean acidification, oceanic plastic pollution, species extinction, etc.
    So, fine, say the free-marketers: establish regulation by private ownership. But this approach is badly flawed in several respects, not limited to the fallacy that owning something necessarily implies the best stewardship. As an example, your suggestion of saving species from extinction by establishing, in effect, game preserves is unworkable for most species – really a cartoonish proposal. (Do YOU belong to Nature Conservancy, or support their work?) How would you propose to “save” an individual blue whale? An individual orca?
    You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that 8 billion humans are wreaking ecological havoc on the planet. You yourself are certainly NOT blameless, particularly if you have used pesticides or herbicides in your “garden”, or have ever eaten food grown with pesticides or herbicides, etc. The evidence is all around you, Neil; open your eyes..

    see more

  • Reply



    In America there is a federal law called the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Almost all birds in North America are considered endangered, other than pigeons and the like. It is thus proscribed by federal law to remove a nesting bird.
    Okay Dodo birds became extinct after British colonialism in Mauritius. The last free ranging White tiger was shot in 1858 after colonialism. Indians considered them sacred and had records of them dating back to the 1500’s hundreds.
    But, this is more important because colonialism left a trail of destructions.
    The Buffalo in North America were shot by those trying to conquer the Native Americans.
    Lake Gitchi Gummi, and Lake Michi Gummi: Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, almost all of Northen America had been named and settled by Indigineous Natives, though less advanced, the Lord would eventually have advanced them. We retained most of the names given by Native Americans who almost were driven to extinction. George Washington, whom I admire, stated the One Path policy.

  • Reply



    Whales were hunted for oil. Baleen whales and humpbacks and other species of whales are endangered.
    But, why do people starve? Why don’t they raise more cattle? Cows make milk, cream is a rich food that goes well with fruits.
    Surely countries can afford to raise more cattle, they only need water and grass, you can take milk from a cow she’ll make more.
    It’s a renewable food resource.
    Water shortage,and drought like in Australia? (They were mad because the Indian monsoon came early. The Lord gave the Indians their rain.) Give the cows the water and take the milk. Cream is more valuable than corn or wheat.

  • Reply




    Nigeria produces good flour. Cows produce milk. So why do people in Ethiopia starve?They have a saying,”If you have good flour and milk cream you never have to eat rice and tamarind” or you are always a wealthy person.

  • Reply




    It’s a simple system, you don’t kill milk giving cows. The farmers sell milk at market for a profit. If they need money they sell some dairy cows, if they are making money they buy more cows.
    After all the children are dying of hunger, so why be worried if a few cows get killed for food?
    The supply has to go where the demand is; starving children should be the priority. Milk cream has protein, rice and tomatoes don’t.

  • Reply







    A generous example of survival of the fittest so let the extinctions continue on.

    We can do with less socialism to start off.

  • Reply

    Taking into account that no human remains older than forty thousand years have been found on the Earth, as well as the fact that people do not have biological brothers on Earth, it can be argued that Homo Sapiens is an artificial biological species. It did not appear due to evolution, but by genetic engineering, or was brought here from other planets.

    So, it is not right for Homo Sapiens to call Earth his planet, for this does not correspond to reality. The man was immediately put here in adverse conditions, which he began to adapt for himself. With a great mind, he became the dominant species on this planet. Realizing that he is a guest here, he should just start exploring space in order to move huge cities into the orbit.

    3/4 of Earth`s surface is not earth but water. No wonder that there are already projects of oceanic cities that will drift over the waves, and cruise liners are their prototypes.

    On Earth, there is less room for life, and in space it is enough of it. People can happily live in the orbit of the Earth and other planets. So the next step after building ocean cities is moving to space, and Earth will get back its native biosphere with all the animals and plants.

    In any way, the Milky Way with its 250 billion +- 150 billion stars is too large and attractive so to stay here all the time and raise chickens, pigs and cows.

    see more

  • Reply





    Opher, please, name at least one relative of a man on Earth except his closest relative macaque (or some other monkey which is still monkey but not a human being). Science knows only human brother yeti who is a strange creature hiding all the time. There is no usual scientific basis to consider the Earth as a human planet. But there are interesting remains of some humanoid giants who lived on the territory of Asia. Earth is full of pyramids and other stone structures which Homo Sapiens cannot built even today with all his technical progress achievements.

    The true history is hidden so don`t believe too much those history books which tell about human evolution as they are the same science fiction as that which you write yourself. Now it is clear that there was no any evolution of Homo Sapiens at all. He just suddenly appeared on Earth 40 000 years ago and all the time needs shelter, forks, plates, clothes, hats, scissors, cookers and so on. Can you catch the antelope and kill it with your claws, then tear apart with sharp teeth, grind her bones while eating, then swallow and go to have a rest while digestion is going on? Can you catch a fish with claws like cats and bears do and eat it whole with bejesus and not cooking on fire? Can you eat the raw meat? No, and don`t try, as there was no any evolution behind you allowing to do it like cats and dogs do.

    BTW a cat has on Earth about 30 brothers and sisters who are very close to him in genetic structure and look very similar. Where are the man`s biological brothers except those apes who differ from him very much and in fact are not his brothers but very distant relatives?

    see more

  • Reply



    ” It did not appear due to evolution, but by genetic engineering, or was brought here from other planets.”

    The other species seem to be able to take a reasonable and modest dump in the forest, but we cannot it seems. Other animals have sufficient skin or coverings and we do not.

    We are distinctly different from the others here. But, we cannot live in space nor can we go elsewhere so we are stuck with our wits instead of thick skins and lubricated droppings.

  • Reply



    We can live in space on space stations and the space exploration history proved it. There was even a historical anecdote with a Soviet cosmonaut Krikalev who flew away into orbit from USSR and spent in space it seems more than a year as USSR collapsed and everything changed so quickly on earth that there was no time to deal with his return. It was so unusual that some Italian activists took the initiative to return Krikalev from space.

  • Reply



    Bravo Neil, tell them!
    They use misplaced sentiment to get finances just to irritate us more.

  • Reply

    Now, perhaps, is the moment to respond to what Opher said, on this thread, in a comment so deeply buried in Disqus’ pages-within-pages-within-pages that finding it again requires almost a lifetime’s journey. And there are only 65 comments here so far!

    What Opher said was: Of course I accept individual responsibility.

    OK Opher, so… what if it turns out that your green policies are wrong? What if the collective measures you propose to “fix” our planet are implemented, and turn out to have made things worse? What if getting rid of landfills, for example, extinguishes “Michael’s flycatcher,” a tiny bird which circles above rubbish tips feeding on the flies that congregate there? Will you accept your share of the responsibility for that extinction? And if human beings suffer because of your bad policies, how will you compensate them?

    As I see it, if you do something that causes risks to others, you must ensure that you have the resources to compensate them if things go wrong. That’s why we must have insurance in order to drive a car, no? So, Opher, how can you reasonably propose that people make sacrifices for some cause, without having the resources to compensate them if the cause turns out to have been wrong?

  • Reply



  • Avatar

    “(1) “Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.””

    What is the truth and by the way cui bono or who profits by this action?? The left gets more money??


    The truth is that the drooling left will do any thing and tell any lie to get money from honest people.


As Vaccine Suspicions Resurface …

April 25, 2019

To Vaccinate or Not

Vaccinations are a good thing. Some people think they cause autism so millions of people aren’t getting them.

My understanding there isn’t a shred of scientific evidence that points to vaccinations causing autism. But the urban legend persists from celebrities like Jenny McCarthy who wrote a book about it (she’s an expert because she has an autistic son). And from her partner of a few years Jim Carrey.

I am not an authority on autism. But there is a perception that the numbers of diagnoses of autism are going up dramatically. Surely mild forms of autism like Aspergers Syndrome in previous generations would have gone undiagnosed. (A person with it would have just been thought to be a bit odd.) So part of this trend of more cases of autism is likely because we’re better at diagnosing autism today.

The question society faces today is should the government force people to vaccinate their kids? My default answer would be no. But if millions of people not vaccinating is leading to outbreaks of measles and other diseases that rightly should be eradicated by now, maybe there are cases when it should.

I’ll end with saying I was living in Bermuda when my son was born. It had a health care system identical to the U.S. and in my son’s first year of life he easily had 10 or more vaccinations. (And then more in his toddler years.)

It seemed excessive to me and as a parent you wondered if you were harming your child by pumping them full of so many strains of diseases. Even if it’s irrational (the view that vaccinations are harmful), I can see how some parents reach that conclusion.

Appendix:There are some vaccinations that seem unnecessary to me like the Cervical Cancer (HPV) vaccine because not everyone gets Cervical Cancer and there are side effects. And there are strange cases of this vaccination resulting in death in places like India ( So that is one that I’d be inclined not to have my daughter get some day, personally.



I do not believe in the governments right to mandate vaccinations. This is far too much power to give to a government that has already shown itself capable of abusing it’s powers.

Private healthcare can solve public health emergencies, which are largely caused by lifestyle choices anyway.






      There is a theory that vaccination is a scam to inject some slave behavior stimulator from the early childhood. At first sight it looks laughable but seeing how some people are ready to stay under the rule of some tyrant, I start thinking that laughs best who laughs last. At least until the middle of the XX century people survived without those vaccines, moreover even school children know today that viruses mutate so the dead or weak vaccine injected them is not a stable way to enforce immunity. There are more traditional ways to enforce immunity like eating enough and regularly including fruits and vegetables. It worked well until vaccination started so why was it started?



      Web – I’ll inject you with polio – you eat fruit and see if it protects you.
      There are no natural ways to build up antibodies in the blood stream against specific viral antigens. Vaccination is the only way.




      You may be right, I don`t argue with truth, this is not my goal at all, moreover if vaccination is really needed than it should go further on. But some scam could intrude in this program as nobody knows what exactly was injected for example in Soviet schools in 1980s. Some rumours tell that so called anti-smallpox injections were in fact injections of slavish humility stimulator. Soviet secret military science was huge, fundamental and cutting edge. And it could be used not only against enemies in the cold war.



      Sorry, Webmaster…Eating spinach doesn’t prevent small pox.


      It is in the news a lot lately. We have illegals coming over the border with all kinds of disease. Then, in NYC, it is an issue with orthodox Jews. I don’t know the issue there. Perhaps it is a religious thing.

      If you protect your child, it shouldn’t be an issue. I suppose a child could still come down with a disease but he should also be better able to recover.

      I don’t hesitate over vaccinations for my child. He’s had them all (probably even fake ones in China). He has allergies and had pneumonia three times before he was one-year-old. I could blame it on the vaccinations. The most likely cause is the absurd levels of pollution in China.

      Let the parents do what they feel is best.

      Cullen rides.






      We should require that all children be vaccinated before being allowed to enter school, with only medical exemptions considered. This would be for diphtheria,
      tetanus, and pertussis; polio; measles and rubella; and chickenpox. This is a requirement in many states, but most states allow exemptions for religious and/or personal beliefs.
      I do not feel that beliefs of a few should jeporadize the health of many.




      So would either you or Opher care to explain how unvaccinated people put vaccinated people at risk. Because to me it seems you are both co9nceding that vaccines don’t work.
      The only things put at risk by people refusing vaccines are corporate profits for the Big Pharma cartel.
      I do not feel that the belief in authoritarianism of the indoctrinated few should put the liberty of the many at risk.



      Quite simple-
      They put every other unvaccinated person at risk, especially infants who are too young to be vaccinated. along with increasing the risk for those who have been vaccinated, but may not have developed a total level of immunity.
      Vaccines work, but some people do not develop total immunity, and of course, some are allergic to certain elements contained within certain vaccines.
      I am against the Big Pharma Cartel, as obviously you are, but for a person to not get vaccinated unless they are allergic to me is plain stupid and also inconsiderate of others.



      Thoroughly agree Cullen. The link between autism and vaccination has been proven false. Something may be causing more autism but it isn’t vaccination.
      However, scare stories are causing huge problems in our fight against disease.
      Vaccination has completely removed smallpox (one of the deadliest viruses on the planet) and was on the verge of removing polio (a terrible life-threatening disease that causes paralysis and severe disability). The Muslims in Africa spread a rumour that the West was vaccinating in order to make people sterile. Millions refused the vaccine. Polio, which was on the verge of extinction, is now rampant across Africa once more killing and crippling babies and putting the rest of the world at risk.
      The one issue I would take issue with is your example of vaccination against cervical cancer. Is this a hint of misogyny in your post? Cervical cancer obviously only affects women. It is a killer and preventable. Most of it is caused by a virus – the Human Papilloma Virus – for which there is a safe vaccine.
      Every year 12,200 women in the USA are diagnosed with this terrible cancer of which 4,210 die. A vaccination programme for young girls would save that tragedy from occurring.


      Ignorance, lies and false propaganda kills.


      Vaccines are necessary medicine with potential side effects that only a medical specialist can prevent. Take your medicine and watch carefully later.




      Yemen is facing the worst epidemic of cholera since records began. The disease has affected over 1 million people and caused almost 2,500 deaths.
      With a simple oral vaccination programme that would not have occurred.




    • Avatar

      Katharine – no I’m not. But if there is no means of supplying clean drinking water then vaccination saves thousands of lives.
      Wars create massive problems.