Tuesday, May 31, 2022
World Health Organization Says It’s ‘Important’ That Pride Celebrations Do Not Change Over Monkeypox Concerns
“It’s important that people who want to go out and celebrate gay pride, LGBTQ+ pride, to continue to go and plan to do so,” Andy Seale, a strategies adviser in the WHO Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and Sexually Transmitted Infections Programmes, said during a press briefing on Monday, according to The Hill.
“There is no specific transmission route that we need to be worried about,” Seale said. “It really is connected to the fact there have been a couple of events that have perhaps amplified the current outbreak.”
Last week, WHO issued “public health advice for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men.”
“It is important to note that the risk of monkeypox is not limited to men who have sex with men. Anyone who has close contact with someone who is infectious is at risk. However, given that the virus is being identified in these communities, learning about monkeypox will help ensure that as few people as possible are affected and that the outbreak can be stopped,” the guidance said.
In bold lettering at the bottom of the guidance, the WHO wrote, “stigmatising people because of a disease is never ok. Anyone can get or pass on monkeypox, regardless of their sexuality.”
Primary school children to be fed edible insects to help make UK greener https://t.co/B924GZXjTw— GB News (@GBNEWS) May 30, 2022
I want to clarify somethings about my story. I was a healthy 29 year old, living a fast paced life. I had a high stress, high paying federal career with thousands of lives on hundreds of airplanes in my hands every day.🧵#VaccineSideEffects #vaccineinjury #vaccineinjured #POTS— Hayley Lopez (@haylopez25) May 28, 2022
Confirmed: Fauci Was Funding Research into Potential Monkeypox Cures Before the Viral Disease Global Outbreak
Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health agency was funding research to identify treatments for monkeypox shortly before the virus began spreading in a global outbreak.
Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has previously come under scrutiny for funding bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which many public health experts and intelligence officials believe to be the source of COVID-19.
NIAID has also funded research into potential cures for monkeypox, shortly before the viral disease began spreading in a global outbreak.
The curious timing of the NIAID grant comes amidst pharmaceutical giants including Pfizer and Johson & Johnson making record-level profits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The grant supports a “randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of tecovirimat for the treatment of patients with monkeypox virus disease.”
“The funding supports a clinical trial to identify effective treatments for monkeypox virus disease,” explains a summary of the research, which, despite beginning in September 2020, has not generated any publicly available studies, papers, or patents.
26-Year-Old Graduate Died from Blood Clots on His Brain Less Than Two Weeks After Receiving Covid Shot – Inquest Says Staff ‘Reassured Him’ of No Risks
A 26-year-old graduate from Coventry University died from a blood clot on his brain after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. An inquest heard that the automotive design graduate was given out-of-date information about the risks of blood clots.
Jack Hurn, from Redditch, died in June last year, less than two weeks after receiving the jab at a vaccine hub in Dudley, county of West Midlands, England. Hurn’s girlfriend, who also took the vaccine, claimed that the medical staff reassured them that the vaccine was safe.
The couple asked the staff for an alternative vaccine as they were “aware of concerns around the use of AstraZeneca for younger people,” but they were told no other vaccines were available, the lawyers said last week.
A week-long inquest at Birmingham Coroner’s Court was told that a GP informed Jack Hurn the risk of blood clots on the brain for his age group was one in 250,000 when the latest NHS guidance estimated it to be one in 50,000, iTV reported.
I guess he just happened to be one in 50,000.
What are the odds that the guy who knows to ask that question is the guy who had the blood clot that killed him?
One in 50,000?
Yes, ok that's what you say it is.
Monday, May 30, 2022
What we see here, so far, is excess mortality continues to trend higher among all ages. So far, excess death is up 16% compared to a year ago. We started the year in negative territory, but as the year progressed, excess deaths have risen again. We went above the 2021 excess death threshold the end of January, 2022.
So far, this year, we have had 129,513 more deaths to date than expected across ALL ages.
Now we have the age 25-44 group.
This one is an interesting one to watch. So far this year, there is a 36% increase in excess death compared to a year ago. We have a surplus of 15,000+ deaths in this age group. The reason I watch this one so closely is that this is normally your healthiest, lowest risk of death age group we have.
STOCKHOLM, Minn. (FOX 9) - A late-night fire at a commercial egg farm likely left thousands of chickens dead Saturday night near Cokato, Minnesota. Crews were called shortly after 10 p.m. on Saturday night for the fire at the Forsman Farms facility off Mowery Avenue in Stockholm Township, located just off Highway 12 between Cokato and Howard Lake. At the scene, crews found heavy fire coming from a barn housing chickens and manure. Multiple departments were called in to help with the large fight. Video posted online by Eddie Olson shows massive flames shooting from the building late Saturday night. The main building involved in the fire was significantly damaged and there was light damage to a neighboring building, deputies say. It's unclear exactly how many chickens were killed in the fire but the Wright County Sheriff's Office says there were estimates of 200,000 chickens inside the building when the fire broke out.
Sunday, May 29, 2022
Palestinian rioters hurled rocks, chairs and fireworks at thousands of Israeli Jews who ascended the flashpoint Temple Mount on Sunday to celebrate Jerusalem Day, amid warnings by the Palestinian Authority that Israel was “playing with fire.”And it's disgusting, to say nothing of a most poor example. It shouldn't have to be made clear that when Islamofascists commit such acts of violence over petty issues, it basically makes clear they choose to be enemies, not friends. And the flag march should not be any more controversial than in any other country. And there's even the following to ponder:
The violence comes ahead of the controversial Flag March, in which Jews armed with Israeli flags march through the Old City of Jerusalem — including the Muslim Quarter — to celebrate the day, which marks the reunification of Jerusalem after Israeli troops recaptured it from Jordanian occupation during the 1967 defensive Six Day War.
Arab bus drivers contracted to drive yeshiva students from southern Israel into the capital for Jerusalem Day refused to transport the students Sunday.It's very bad that death threats were made against the drivers. Simultaneously, one must wonder why this Bnei Akiva outfit's employing them far more than Jewish drivers, if it matters. See also this item about a Gaza actor who incited violence.
Students from the Ohel Shlomo Yeshiva, a Bnei Akiva school in Beersheba, were left without transportation to Jerusalem Day festivities in the capital Sunday morning, when all five bus drivers assigned to the school refused to drive the students.
“The bus company’s drivers are Arabs,” Aviad Tzadok, the school’s principal, told Israel National News. “All of them cancelled their drives this morning. I ended up with no buses this morning.”
Another school administrator, Rabbi Shlomi Tuvol, spoke with the manager of the bus company, who told him that the bus drivers had received death threats aimed at deterring them from driving the students.
Now, if you want some more positive news, here's some with photos:
Thousands of Israelis gathered in central Jerusalem Sunday afternoon to mark the 55th anniversary of the reunification of Israel's capital city.See the whole article for the pics. Jerusalem Day is something that should be celebrated, and it's a shame Islamofascists continue to soil the better impact of the occasion.
The Jerusalem Day Flag March (Rikudgalim) is set to head out from Bezelal Street in the capital, with two gatherings set for 5:00 p.m., including one in front of the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem on King George Street, and one on HaMa'alot Street.
Throughout history, the poets, the prophets and mystics have usually done a better job of predicting the future than pundits, politicians or scientists.The French mystic and thinker René Guénon, who was doing his best work nearly a century back, was one of them. Guénon laid out his notion that the modern world had deteriorated into a realm of pure materialism as a result of what he called the “Western deviation” from eternal truth. He called this the “reign of quantity”, and predicted its future collapse.But Guénon was not simply talking economics or politics. What was going on, he said, was something akin to a spiritual war, and as a Sufi Muslim he wasn’t shy about naming its antagonist. To this age, he wrote, “the word ‘Satanic’ can indeed be properly applied”.Presenting disorder as order and truth as lies — this, wrote Guénon, was the way that Satan rolled. The “more or less direct agents of the Adversary”, he explained, using the Biblical name for what Europeans would later come to call the Devil, always aimed to invert reality. Right is wrong, black is white, up is down, there is no truth, do what thou wilt: this has always been the Adversary’s line, and today it is prominent in all quarters.The heterodox Catholic philosopher Ivan Illich, who died in 2002, also believed we were living in the time of Anti-Christ, but for different reasons. For Illich, any claims that we lived in a “secular age” were nonsense.The modern West was still Christian, he said, but it had disastrously attempted to codify the spontaneous expressions of love which Christ had shown to be God’s desire for humanity within systems and institutions.First the Church, and then the supposedly “secular” liberal states which had succeeded it, had attempted to transmute Christian love into obligation and enforce it by law, thus twisting it into a new form of oppression.A decade or so before Illich was writing, the Jewish Beat poet Allen Ginsberg was also attending to the dark spiritual undercurrent of the age. He had a different interpretation of its source — or perhaps he was just using a different name.
In Howl, he identified the forward march of industrial modernity — and especially the hypocrisy and brutality of the American empire — with the pagan god Moloch, who demanded human sacrifice from his devotees:
Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! …
Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!
Ginsberg, it seemed, could also sense that the spirit of his age was not under human control, either out in the world or in his own soul and mind.
Usually this is easier to talk about in poetry or fiction, for the age doesn’t look kindly on anything which can’t be quantified. It can deal with Ginsberg, but it doesn’t want to talk about Moloch. It can just about cope with Christ if he has been brought down to our level — made into an activist or a defender of culture or a “cosmic” manifestation of the self — but it has nothing to say about Anti-Christ, who blows the whole story sky-high.
As for St Paul’s famous notion that the world is subject not only to nature but to “principalities and powers” which wish us ill.
Take, for example, the Silicon Valley philosopher Kevin Kelly’s pet notion that technology has its own mind and its own purpose: that through the web of what he calls “the technium”, something is using us to create itself.
Kelly sees technology growing into something self-aware and independent of its human creators, as he explained in his book What Technology Wants:
“It may have once been as simple as an old computer program, merely parroting what we told it, but now it is more like a very complex organism that often follows its own urges.”
Why has Bill Gates — neither doctor nor scientist become regarded as an expert in global health policy?
Why has Bill Gates — neither doctor nor scientist become regarded as an expert in global health policy? Dr. @Stuckelberger, International Public Health Scientist weighs in on #CHDTV— Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) May 28, 2022
⏯️ https://t.co/3WuSNeZiGR pic.twitter.com/37R5O1C6Cq
Saturday, May 28, 2022
Are Ballot Harvesting Arrests Beginning? Two People Have Been Arrest Since Release of 2000 Mules, One Is Charged With Conspiracy
Two people have plead guilty to ballot harvesting in Arizona.— Ultra Dante 🇺🇸 (@RealDante12) May 26, 2022
One is a Democrat politician who plead guilty to CONSPIRACY charges and is giving up the names of her accomplices.
Spread The Word ... it's starting 💥 pic.twitter.com/SkGZw0B12S
A teacher in California asked students to write down how comfortable they are with anal sex. Because it's important for teachers to know these things about their students.https://t.co/Rs8P16hfNi— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) May 26, 2022
In his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All, Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, claims that western society is morally rotten, and that it has been corrupted by capitalism, which has brought about a “climate emergency” that threatens life on earth. This, he claims, requires rigid controls on personal freedom, industry and corporate funding.
Since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the “Great Reset,” or the “Green New Deal,” or “Building Back Better.” All are predicated on the claim that COVID, and its disruption of the global economy, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to regulate climate, but to frame a more fair, more diverse, more inclusive, more safe and more woke world.
Carney draws inspiration from, among others, Marx, Engels and Lenin, but the agenda he promotes differs from Marxism in two key respects. First, the private sector is not to be expropriated but made a “partner” in reshaping the economy and society. Second, it does not make a promise to make the lives of ordinary people better, but worse.
Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty: “Assets will be stranded, used gasoline powered cars will be unsaleable, inefficient properties will be unrentable,” he promises.
The agenda’s objectives are in fact already being enforced, not primarily by legislation but by the application of non-governmental — that is, non-democratic — pressure on the corporate sector via the ever-expanding dictates of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) and by “sustainable finance,” which is designed to starve non-compliant companies of funds, thus rendering them, as Carney puts it, “climate roadkill.”
What ESG actually represents is corporate ideological compulsion. It is a key instrument of “stakeholder capitalism.” Carney’s Agenda is promoted by the United Nations and other international bureaucracies and a vast and ever-growing array of non-governmental organizations and fora, especially the World Economic Forum (WEF), where Carney is a trustee. Also, perhaps most surprisingly, by its corporate victims. No one wants to become climate roadkill.
In a speech to the Liberal party’s national convention on Friday, Mark Carney, who grew up in Edmonton, praised the Trudeau government for implementing and then raising the carbon tax. Carney tells Liberal convention he will 'do whatever I can' to support the party Carney clearly feels himself to be a man of destiny.
“When I worked at the Bank of England,” he writes in Value(s), “I would remind myself each morning of Marcus Aurelius’ phrase ‘arise to do the work of humankind’.” One is reminded of French aristocrat and social reformer Henri de Saint-Simon, the “grand seigneur sans-culotte,” who ordered his valet to wake him with similar words: “Remember, monsieur le comte, that you have great things to do.”
That is not the only thing Carney has in common with Saint-Simon, who believed that society should be ruled by savants such as himself; an alliance of engineers and other technocratic intellectuals, along with bankers. Carney is very much a banker technocrat, not merely at ease gliding along the corridors of global bureaucratic power, but expert at framing arguments that support an ever-expanding role for his class. His expansive pretensions first appeared at the Bank of Canada. If the economy is like a game of ice hockey, then central bankers should, ideally, be like Zamboni drivers, whose job is to keep the ice flat (Carney had in fact been a goalie during his academic years at both Harvard and Oxford).
At the Bank of Canada, he often seemed like the Zamboni driver who thought he was Wayne Gretzky. He could never resist lecturing private businesses to stop sitting on “dead money,” or telling them they were too timid in the international arena, or advising consumers that they were spending too little, or borrowing too much. He promoted “macroprudence,” the idea that regulators, in their panoptic wisdom, would focus on the forest, not the trees. Now, he wants to establish himself as an intellectual.
Carney has a lot to put straight with the world. According to his new book, and the related BBC Reith Lectures that Carney delivered last year, the three great crises of credit (2008–09 version), COVID and climate are all rooted in a single problem: People in general, and markets in particular, are not as wise, moral or far-seeing as Mark Carney. He sums up this failing as the “Tragedy of the Horizon,” a phrase he concocted for a speech ahead of the 2015 Paris climate conference.
However, Carney is sophistic when it comes to the alleged moral shortcomings of capitalism. It has been one of the most tedious tropes of the left since at least The Communist Manifesto that the rise of commerce would drive out all that is virtuous in society, leaving nothing but the “cash nexus” of trade. One of Carney’s favourite philosophers is Harvard’s Michael Sandel, who produces endless trivial examples suggesting that we have moved from a “market economy” to a “market society.”
“Should sex be up for sale?” Carney thunders, following Sandel. “Should there be a market in the right to have children? Why not auction the right to opt out of military service? Why shouldn’t universities sell admission to raise money for worthy causes?” But the very fact that people reflexively feel uneasy about — or outright reject — such notions entirely disproves his point. People do not believe that everything is, or should be, for sale.
Carney notes the long debate, going back to classical times, on the nature of commercial value. This was theoretically resolved by the “marginalist revolution,” which put paid to the “paradox of value” that puzzled over the (usually) low price of useful water and the (usually) high price of useless diamonds. The marginalists pointed out that commercial value isn’t determined by usefulness or labour input. It is inevitably subjective, based on personal preferences and available resources.
There is no paradox. Someone dying of thirst in the middle of the desert might be more than willing to offer a bucket of diamonds for a bucket of water. However, market valuations are essentially different from moral values, a distinction Carney continually muddles. He misrepresents the marginalist/subjectivist perspective, claiming that it implies that anything not commercially priced is not considered valuable.
“Market value,” he writes, “is taken to represent intrinsic value, and if a good or activity is not in the market, it is not valued.” But who holds such an idiotic view? Nobody “prices” their family, children, friends, community spirit or the beauties of nature, although there is certainly lots of calculation going on in the background.
Carney constantly berates “market fundamentalist” straw men who employ “standard economic reasoning” and who believe that people are rational and markets perfect. He incorrectly claims that Adam Smith — in his first great book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments— said that a sense of morality was “not inherent.” In fact, Smith believed that we are born with such a sense, which is then fine-tuned by the society in which we grow up.
However, Carney — like all leftists — leans towards the blank slate, nurture-over-nature perspective because it suggests that human nature might be beneficially reformed under the right (that is, left) social arrangements.
Carney believes our moral sentiments started going astray around the time of the publication of Smith’s better-known book, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776, when the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take off. He rightly suggests that one should read both books to gain a full appreciation of Smith’s insights, but he seems to have missed the significance of Smith’s putdown of “whining and melancholy moralists,” his cynicism about “insidious and crafty” politicians, and his thoroughgoing skepticism about those who would “trade for the public good” (that is, the ESG crowd).
Moreover, Smith noted that the greatest corrupter of moral sentiments was not commerce but “faction and fanaticism,” that is, politics and religion, which come together in the toxic stew of climate alarmism and ESG. ESG used to be called Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR.
The Nobel economist Milton Friedman warned against its subversive nature 50 years ago. He noted that taking on externally dictated “social responsibilities” beyond those directly related to a company’s business opened the floodgates to endless pressure and interference. The big questions are responsibility to whom? And for what?
Carney also typically misrepresents Friedman, suggesting that he claimed that shareholders should rank “uber alles,” and to the exclusion of other legitimate stakeholders such as employees and local communities. Carney claims that “At times, large positive gains could accrue to society if small sacrifices were made on behalf of shareholders.” But by what right would management “sacrifice” shareholders, and who would decide which sacrifices should be made?
Carney admits that the “integrated reporting” required by ESG is a morass: “ESG ratings consider hundreds of metrics, with many of them qualitative in nature… Putting values to work is hard work, but as with virtue, it should become easier with sustained practice.” No need to ask whose version of values and virtue is to prevail.
Despite his thorough castigation of market society, Carney somehow also believes this “corroded” society is clamouring to make great personal sacrifices for draconian climate actions and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Carney has been a prime pusher of “net-zero,” the notion that climate-related human emissions must be entirely eradicated, buried or offset by 2050 if the world is to avoid climate Armageddon. He claims that net-zero is “highly valued by society.”
In reality, the vast mass of people have no clue what it entails; when Carney talks about this version of “society,” he is talking about a small, radical element of it. Carney peddles the non-sequitur that because the world wasn’t ready for COVID, this confirms that the world is being short-sighted about climate catastrophe. But COVID is an obvious reality; an existential climate catastrophe is a hypothesis (frequently promoted — admittedly with great success — by those with agendas).
He claims that “A good introduction to this subject can be found in journalist David Wallace-Wells’ The Uninhabitable Earth,” a work heavily criticized even by prominent climate-change scientists for its factual errors and exaggerations. Indeed, even its author admitted its tendentious purpose.
Carney also commends the knowledge and wisdom of Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg: “The power of Greta Thunberg’s message lies in the way she drives home both the cold logic of climate physics and the fundamental unfairness of the climate crisis.”
Anybody who cites an anxious 17-year-old as an authority on climate science and moral philosophy should be an object of deep suspicion, but then, according to Carney, climate science is easy. Greta’s “basic calculations” are ones that she could “easily master and powerfully project.” (Carney says he once gave Greta a tour of the Bank of England’s gold vaults. One wonders if she also offered up tips on monetary policy.) But then, in early 2020, Greta demonstrated her complete disconnect from reality when, at the WEF in Davos, she called for an immediate cessation of emissions, which would tank the world economy and potentially kill millions.
Even Carney admits deviating from her wisdom on that point. Far from demonstrating a firm knowledge of the climate system himself, Carney cites scary but misleading statistics. “Since the 1980s,” he writes, “the number of registered weather-related loss events has tripled, and the inflation-adjusted losses have increased fivefold. Consistent with the accelerated pace of climate change, the cost of weather-related insurance losses has increased eightfold in real terms over the past decade to an annual average of $60 billion.”
I asked Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., an expert on climate and economics at the University of Colorado, to comment. He replied “(Carney) has confused economics with weather. The increase in losses he describes is well understood to occur for two main reasons: more wealth and property exposed to loss and better accounting of those losses. To assess trends in extreme weather one should look at weather data, not economic loss data.”
Carney’s confusion is hardly innocent since his Agenda depends on incessantly claiming that “What had been biblical is becoming commonplace.” Fortunately, Carney has been making claims about worsening weather for long enough that we can assess some of his predictions.
In his recent book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Obama-era U.S. Energy Department, cites the speech Carney made to Lloyd’s of London before the Paris climate conference in 2015. The speech was designed to frighten the insurance industry into divestment from fossil fuels, on the basis that many oil and gas reserves would be “stranded” as we exhaust our allowable carbon “budget.”
Carney pointed out that the previous U.K. winter had been the “wettest since the time of King George III.” He went on to say, “forecasts suggest we can expect at least a further 10% increase in rainfall during future winters.” For support he cited the U.K. Met Office’s forecast for the next five years. It turned out to be dead wrong. The six winters after 2014 averaged 39-per-cent less rainfall than the 2014 record.
Meanwhile a Met Office report in 2018 acknowledged that the “largest source of variability in U.K. extreme rainfalls during the winter months was the North Atlantic Oscillation mode of natural variability, not a changing climate.” “(I)t’s surprising,” notes Koonin, “that someone with a PhD in economics and experience with the unpredictability of financial markets and economies as a whole doesn’t show a greater respect for the perils of prediction — and more caution in depending upon models.”
During his BBC Reith Lectures last year, on the topic of “How We Get What We Value,” Carney received few challenges from his handpicked questioners, but a couple came from eminent historian Niall Ferguson. Ferguson asked Carney why, in his discussion of the climate issue, he made no reference to Bjorn Lomborg (a much more knowledgeable Scandinavian than Greta), and in particular to Lomborg’s book, False Alarm, in which Lomborg establishes — using “official” science — that there is no existential climate crisis, that adapting to climate change is manageable, and that the kinds of policies promoted by Carney are likely to be far more costly than any impact from extreme weather.
Carney of course hadn’t read that book, but he dismissed Lomborg by saying that “it’s 15 or 20 years ago when he first came out with his ‘Don’t worry about the climate.’ How’s that working out for us?” But Lomborg never said “Don’t worry about the climate,” he just suggested that we had to put risks into perspective.
Meanwhile Lomborg’s non-alarmist thesis is working out much better than that of doomsayers such as Carney. This offhand rejection of someone as widely respected as Lomborg exposes the hypocrisy of Carney’s statement in Value(s) that “experts need to listen to all sides…All of us as individuals have a responsibility to be more open and to engage respectfully with different views if we want constructive political debates and to make progress on important issues.”
Except, climate-catastrophe dissenters don’t make it into the debate. There can be zero diversity of views on net-zero. Ferguson put another thorny question to Carney at that Reith lecture: He pointed out that since the 2015 Paris agreement, China had been responsible for almost half the increase in global carbon emissions, and it was building more coal capacity in the current year than existed in the entire United States. What did China’s promises of net-zero by 2060 mean, Ferguson asked, if it was “actually leading the pollution charge”? Carney’s non response was that China is the largest manufacturer of zero-emission cars, and the leading producer of renewable energy.
Koonin notes in his book that Carney “is probably the single most influential figure in driving investors and financial institutions around the world to focus on changes in climate and human influences upon it…. So it’s important to pay close attention to what he says.” Mark Carney cries crocodile tears at the possible viability of the Marxist perspective in today’s political environment.
But if there is one sure sign of a Marxist, it’s a belief that capitalism is — or is about to be – in “crisis.” His new book has an appendix on Marx’s theory of surplus value: that all profits are wrung from the hides of labour. He also cites Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels. In particular he notes “Engels’ pause,” the one period in capitalist history, early in the 19th century, when workers may not have shared the increases in productivity brought about by industrialization.
Carney projects that the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (a phenomenon much invoked by the WEF) might bring about a similar period, thus providing a source of political unrest.
“(I)t could be generations before the gains of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are widely shared,” he writes. “In the interim, there could be a long period of technological unemployment, sharply rising inequalities and intensifying social unrest… If this world of surplus labour comes to pass, Marx and Engels could again become relevant.” He rather seems to hope so.
Carney claims powerful parallels between Marx’s time and our own. “Substitute platforms for textile mills, machine learning for the steam engine, and Twitter for the telegraph, and current dynamics echo those of that era. Then, Karl Marx was scribbling the Communist Manifesto in the reading room of the British Library. Today, radical viral blogs and tweets voice similar outrage.”
In fact, Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, based on a tract by Engels, in Brussels, not at the British Library, but it’s more important to remember where Marx’s misguided and immutable outrage led: to a disastrous economic and political model that generated poverty and mass murder on an unprecedented scale.
Meanwhile “outrage” is surely a dubious basis for policy. The outraged are certainly a useful constituency for those seeking power, however, which brings us to the influence on Carney of the man who first tried to put Marxism into practice. When it comes to the COVID crisis, writes Carney, “We are living Lenin’s observation that there are ‘decades when nothing happens and weeks when decades happen’.”
Strange that Carney would cite one of the most ruthless murderers in history for this rather bland insight, but then Carney’s Agenda is not without its own parallels to Lenin (minus, one presumes, the precondition of rampant bloodshed). Although Vladimir Lenin didn’t know much about business or economics, he declared that “’Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.”
Carney’s plan is global. “We need,” he claims, “to electrify everything and turn electricity generation green.” The problem is that wind- and solar-powered electricity needs both hefty government subsidies and fossil-fuel backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. Green electricity is inflexible, expensive and disruptive to grids.
Carney cites Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction,” but his own version involves not the metaphorical and benign process of market innovation making old technologies redundant, but a deliberate suppression of viable technologies to make way for less reliable and less economic alternatives.
When Lenin wrecked the Russian economy after brutally seizing power in 1917, he was forced to backtrack and allow some private enterprise to prevent people starving. However, he assured his radical comrades that he would retain control of “the commanding heights” of heavy industry.
Carney’s plan is to control the global economy by seizing the commanding heights of finance, not by nationalization but by exerting non-democratic pressure to divest from, and stop funding, fossil fuels. The private sector is to become a partner in imposing its own bondage. This will be do-it-yourself totalitarianism.
Indeed, companies in our one-party ESG state are already pleading like show-trial defendants, making suicidal net-zero commitments, lest banks cut them off. To further that end, Carney has helped to start a key organization, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), a collection of central banks and regulators. He has also signed up an ever-growing constituency of activist policy wonks who peddle emissions measurement and certification, eco audits and ESG rankings.
This agenda is inevitably appealing to transnational organizations such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, whose empires are all lucratively intertwined with the global governance thrust. In May, the IEA issued a report calling for an immediate end to fossil fuel investment to get to net-zero. Part of Carney’s strategy is to force “voluntary” standards on banking and industry, then have governments make those standards compulsory. The major accounting firms appear keen to promote the possibility of endless auditing extensions, under which the relatively straightforward metric of money is to be replaced by the infinitely malleable concepts of “purpose” and “impact.”
Carney has also helped turn the accounting screw though “carbon disclosure.” Companies are pressured to make explicit the kind of damage they might suffer if the alarmists’ worst nightmares are realized. Such disclosure is a variant on that famous loaded question “When did you stop beating your spouse?” Instead, carbon disclosure asks the climate equivalent of “If you were to beat your spouse, what sort of injuries might he/she suffer?”
Companies must also disclose their plans to deal with the presumed crisis. No company dares to say “We do not believe your apocalyptic forecasts.” They meekly regurgitate the required climate porn about floods and droughts and hurricanes, and make elaborate fingers-crossed emissions-reductions commitments. This in turn leads them into arrangements such as buying emissions offsets, a complex scheme analogous to the medieval Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences. Carbon markets have inevitably led to a surge in work for offset generators, certifiers and auditors. Carney projects this market could be worth $100 billion.
Ironically, earlier this year Carney found himself tangled in the murky metrics of offsets. In 2020, he was appointed a vice chairman with Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management, where he is in charge of “impact investing.” As historian Tammy Nemeth points out in her critical study of the “Transnational Progressive Movement,” of which Carney is a leading light: “(I)t is perhaps ethically murky for someone who is actively working within the UN and advising two different governments on how to change national and global financial rules to be working for a company that will be a direct beneficiary of those rule changes.”
Still, who better to lead your company through a minefield than the person who planted the mines? Except that Carney was hoist with his own petard when he claimed that Brookfield, which has major investments in fossil fuels and pipelines, was already “net-zero” due to emissions “avoided” as a result of its investing in renewable energy.
Carney’s claim produced instant refutation and accusations of greenwashing. The Financial Times called it a “major stumble.” A representative of CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) castigated those who attempt to hide “dirty coal issues.” Carney subsequently issued a qualified mea culpa on Twitter: “I have always been — and will continue to be — a strong advocate for net zero science-based targets, and I also recognize that avoided emissions do not count towards them.”
H. L. Mencken observed that “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule.” So, just how big a threat is the agenda of Mark Carney and his fellow “transnational progressives”? In his book, Value(s), Carney lays out rationalizations and autocratic pretensions, although he is less forthcoming about his motivations. He writes that “Leaders need to renounce power for its own sake and discern the power of service.” Mencken would be amused.
The shambolic response to COVID of many governments, not least in Canada, and the distinctly unsettled nature of pandemic “science,” have not done much for the credibility of either governments or experts. The Carney-backed agenda is not predicated on working through democratic institutions but on circumventing them. Still, he is also reported to have more conventional political aspirations, namely to join the federal Liberal party and rise within it, very possibly to prime minister. (Carney recently gave a speech at the Liberal national convention, where he pledged his full support.) He thus has a rather ill-fitting section in Value(s) on “How Canada Can Build Value for All.” It reads like a Liberal party stump speech.
According to Carney “We (in Canada) routinely transcend the limitations of our size to model values and policies for other countries.” It’s the old chestnut that no progressive Canadian leader ever seems to tire of: The world needs more Canada. Carney is a classic example of what Friedrich Hayek called the “fatal conceit” of constructivist rationalism: the belief that the largely spontaneous institutions of the market order should be rejected in favour of more deliberately planned arrangements.
Carney is undoubtedly an intelligent man, but Hayek stressed that the thing that intelligent people tend most to overestimate is the power of intelligence — particularly if they happen to be socialists. Carney is also of the class that philosopher Karl Popper described as “enemies” of an “open society.” Popper noted that social upheavals tend to bring forth prophets who claim to understand the forces shaping the future, and promise salvation if they are given absolute power. Such was Plato’s model — in response to the upheavals of the Peloponnesian War and the first wave of democracy — of a necessary dictatorship in which the rulers lived as communists, using a specially bred military to control a cattle-like populace.
Similarly, Marx’s communism was a response to the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution. Considering the squalor of Manchester in the 1840s, one might forgive Marx and Engels for thinking a radical response was in order. But given the success of capitalism and the horrors of autocratic systems in the intervening period, it takes considerable chutzpah to be promoting net-zero totalitarianism.
Still, Carney claims that great crises demand great plans. He cites Timothy Geithner, secretary of the U.S. Treasury under president Obama, saying “plan beats no plan.” But Geithner was talking about the very real and immediate 2008–09 financial crisis. Carney’s climate plan is much closer to the notion of Soviet central long-term planning. Clearly, when it came to the subsequent welfare of the Russian people, “no plan” would certainly have beaten “plan.”
What Carney ultimately wants, like Saint-Simon, is a technocratic dictatorship justified by climate alarmism. He suggests that “governments can delegate certain aspects of the calibration of specific instruments… to Carbon Councils in order to improve the predictability, credibility and impact of climate policies.” These carbon councils will be able to demand that national governments “comply or explain” when they inevitably fall short of targets.
How these commissars will bring governments into line is unclear, although Nobel economist William Nordhaus has suggested “Climate Clubs” that will punish recalcitrants with punitive tariffs. The threat of punishment will clearly be necessary because governments are doing little more than hypocritical tinkering on climate policy. China and India are hardly even playing lip service to the “climate emergency.” Nevertheless, according to Carney “political technology” is needed to “build a broad consensus around the right goals.” No question of debating the goals, or the science, just building a consensus to support them.
Carney is a man on a mission to change global society. “Business as usual” — the most hated phrase in the socialist lexicon — is “ultimately catastrophic,” he writes. There is too much “misplaced acceptance of the status quo.” But somehow the new socialism will not be socialism as usual. This time it’s different. We can because we must. The threat is too great to permit any argument. It’s surprising that as he was picking out choice quotes from Lenin for his book, Carney missed this one: “No more opposition now, comrades! The time has come to put an end to opposition, to put the lid on it. We have had enough opposition!”
REVEALED: Uvalde school district was part of AI program that rooted out potential mass killers and monitored social media for threats and potential shooters
- Texas school officials had been monitoring students' social media prior to the deadly shooting in Uvalde Tuesday - but failed to pick up on posts from gunman
- As an 18th birthday present to himself earlier this month, now-deceased suspect Salvador Ramos bought two AR-style rifles and paraded them on social media
- The ensuing massacre left 19 students aged under 11 and two adults dead
- Before the rampage, Ramos reportedly also shot his 66-year-old grandmother
- Uvalde School District officials say they had been monitoring its students' social media pages using an advanced AI-based service called Social Sentinel
- The software is designed to find signs of potential harm in digital conversation
Friday, May 27, 2022
Executive Director of Oxfam Brags to Audience at World Economic Forum – “COVID Has Been One of the Most Profitable Products Ever” (VIDEO)
Speaking at Davos Annual Meeting 2022 during Equitable Responses to Ending the Pandemic on Monday, Oxfam International’s executive director Gabriela Bucher said billionaires were arriving at the summit to “celebrate an incredible surge in their fortunes.”
According to a report from CNBC, Buche added, “The pandemic and now the steep increases in food and energy prices have, simply put, been a bonanza for them.”
“Meanwhile, decades of progress on extreme poverty are now in reverse and millions of people are facing impossible rises in the cost of simply staying alive,” Bucher said. Bucher also mentioned that Covid has been one of the most profitable products.
“Billionaires has been, you know, unprecedented during the pandemic. And there’s been several sectors where that has been mostly concentrated. And one is, in fact, the pharma sectors, because Covid has been one of the most profitable products ever. So that’s one point to discuss in our report,” Bucher said.
Witness: Police Stood Outside the School While Mass Murderer Salvador Ramos Went on Killing Spree – Armed Police Pinned One Man to the Ground
“Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed to,” said Javier Cazares, whose daughter was killed in the 40-minute #RobbElementary school massacre in #Uvalde— Stefan Simanowitz (@StefSimanowitz) May 26, 2022
This footage shows armed police pinning one man to the ground pic.twitter.com/3rUkeFqAX2 https://t.co/w7D3G3666J
Cops Handcuffed Mother Who Was Trying to Enter School to Save Her Child, For "Interfering with an Active Investigation"
Here’s a Texas DPS Lieutenant telling a local station that some officers breached the school to get their own children BEFORE the shooter was taken down. pic.twitter.com/BrvS4sCqp6— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) May 26, 2022
"The police were doing nothing," said Angeli Rose Gomez, who after learning about the shooting drove 40 miles to Robb Elementary School, where her children are in second and third grade.
"They were just standing outside the fence. They weren't going in there or running anywhere." State officials have said that local police were at the school within a few minutes of the gunman entering the building and exchanged gunfire with him, but they were unable to gain access to a classroom where he barricaded himself, firing on officers.
Ms. Gomez, a farm supervisor, said that she was one of numerous parents who began encouraging--first politely, and then with more urgency--police and other law enforcement to enter the school.
After a few minutes, she said, federal marshals approached her and put her in handcuffs, telling her she was being arrested for intervening in an active investigation. Ms. Gomez convinced local Uvalde police officers whom she knew to persuade the marshals to set her free.
Around her, the scene was frantic. She said she saw a father tackled and thrown to the ground by police and a third pepper-sprayed. Once freed from her cuffs, Ms. Gomez made her distance from the crowd, jumped the school fence, and ran inside to grab her two children. She sprinted out of the school with them.
Thursday, May 26, 2022
The emergency rule, issued Monday by state health department Director Adam Meier, is a direct challenge to a court order handed down in April that blocks the state from enforcing a law that limits how the department may alter sex designations on state-issued birth certificates.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Montana, the ACLU Foundation LGBTQ & HIV Project and the law firm Nixon Peabody LLP challenged the measure in a lawsuit filed last year on behalf of two transgender Montanans. In April, a Montana judge ordered the state to halt its enforcement of Senate Bill 280, a law passed last year to restrict the way in which DPHHS may amend sex designations on state-issued birth certificates.
Under the law, a resident’s sex designation may only be changed if DPHHS receives a court order indicating that “the sex of a person has been changed by surgical procedure.” Yellowstone County District Court Judge Michael G. Moses wrote in the order that “transgender people who are denied accurate birth certificates are deprived of significant control over” how they disclose their identity.
Inaccurate identity documents have also been linked to discrimination and harassment that can put the lives of transgender people at risk. But on Monday, DPHHS argued that Moses’ decision had left the department “in an ambiguous and uncertain situation” because it had not mandated the department to re-implement a 2017 policy that had allowed transgender residents to change their birth certificates without proof of gender-affirming surgery. That policy had been eliminated by Senate Bill 280, meaning there is currently “no non-enjoined regulatory mechanism” to accept and process sex identification amendment applications, DPHHS said.
Over 500 Military Service Members Sue the Government for Mandating a Vaccine that Was Not FDA Approved and Should Not Have Been Administered
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Male High School Teacher Writes About How Good it Feels to Wear Women’s Panties to School and Coming out as ‘Non-Binary’ to His Students
Male teacher writes about how good it feels wearing women’s undergarments to school and coming out as non-binary to his students. pic.twitter.com/ZJSMxdNWK3— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 23, 2022
.@LoyolaSchoolNYC’s principal refused to answer if she’s going to address this. She said “I have no comment to you.” Meanwhile the teacher has deleted his Facebook account.— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 23, 2022
But wait…. There’s more. pic.twitter.com/Gvbyzp3OPq— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 23, 2022
Once again, honesty is going to prove tough for the public health authorities
Are you a gay man? Specifically, are you a gay man who likes sex with lots of other gay men? Maybe in a bathhouse? Maybe names optional? Maybe with a meth bump on the side?
No? Are you sure?
It’s cool if you are, no judgments.
They’re called glory holes for a reason, people! Still no? Okay. D
on’t worry about the monkeypox thing then.
You can almost feel the public health authorities squirming right now.
On the one hand, they’ve almost got another epidemic on the go – the perfect way to distract the shiny-haired robots in the media from the complete failure of the mRNA vaccines.
On the other, the monkeypox epidemic – stop me if you’ve heard this before – very much appears to be centered around the sexual practices of gay men. (And bisexual men, also known as gay men who want to pretend they’re straight.)
In this, monkeypox joins not just HIV, but syphilis, gonorrhea, and a bunch of other nasties.
The state of California – that hyper-conservative hotspot – reports that gay men are hundreds of times more likely to get syphilis than straight men or women.
Alex Berenson has the whole story.
I may not agree with you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.