A plethora of narratives have spawned since the start of the Chinese coronavirus pandemic, from the narrative that it originated from a guy eating a bat in a Wuhan market (more and more evidence points to the Virology institute in Wuhan being the most likely source) to the narrative that it disproportionately affects minorities (because to the Left, everything, including an unconscious virus, is racist).
From the narrative that getting the Chinese coronavirus is a borderline death sentence to the narrative that wearing 27 masks will keep you safe (to be fair, the virus can’t get in if oxygen can’t either). Fake narrative after fake narrative has spawned and been propagated by the Left and the fake news media to scare the population into being submissive little puppies who will obey daddy government’s every order.
However, two studies showcase how fake a couple of these narratives are with the very thing that these Leftists supposedly clamor for: science and evidence-based data.
First, let’s begin with the study relating to mask mandates and usage as they relate to the spread of the Chinese coronavirus.
The lead of this study, Damian D. Guerra, assistant professor of biology at the University of Louisville, “hypothesized that statewide mask mandates and mask use are associated with lower COVID-19 case growth rates.”
In essence, the researchers hypothesized that the running assumption made by the Left and many other people that mask mandates and usage lead to lower transmission rates was true. However, unlike fake Twitter scientists, the researchers sought out to do what actual researchers and scientists usually seek: evidence that their hypothesis is wrong.
If scientists just look for evidence that their hypothesis is right, they run the risk of ignoring evidence that it is wrong, which brings bias into their hypothesis and makes for bad science. But if they search for evidence that their hypothesis is wrong and can’t find any, they lead people to understand that their hypothesis, by virtue that there is no evidence to show it’s wrong, is correct.
This is what the researchers did for mask mandates and usage, and lo and behold, they found evidence that their hypothesis that mask mandates and usage lead to lower transmission rates is incorrect.
“Contrary to our hypothesis,” the authors found, “early mandates were not associated with lower minimum case growth. Maximum case growth was the same among states with early, late, and no mandates. This indicates that mask mandates were not predictive of slower COVID-19 spread when community transmission rates were low or high.”
They continued: “We wondered if mask mandates were associated with smaller or slower surges in case growth. Differences between minimum and maximum case growth were similar among early, late, and no mandate states, and surges from minimum to maximum growth occurred at similar rates. These findings suggest that mask mandates are not predictive of smaller or slower shifts from low to high case growth.”
In simple terms, the mask mandates, as we have known for quite some time, did nothing to prevent the spread of the virus. People were forced to accept (and ashamedly, some willingly accepted) a severe reduction in their personal freedoms in exchange for the IDEA of safety, not even actual safety.
It didn’t matter if your state forced upon you (unconstitutionally) the wearing of masks or not, because both methods led to the same results, as we have known for some time thanks to other studies.
“Case growth,” the study continues, “was not significantly different between mandate and non-mandate states at low or high transmission rates, and surges were equivocal. Mask use predicted lower case growth at low, but not high transmission rates. Growth rates were comparable between states in the first and last mask use quintiles adjusted for normalized total cases early in the pandemic and unadjusted after peak Fall-Winter infections. Mask use did not predict Summer 2020 case growth for non-Northeastern states or Fall-Winter 2020 growth for all continental states.”
In other words, actual mask usage did little in the way of slowing the spread of the virus, only being somewhat useful with low transmission rates. Ultimately, this is what the authors found: “Mask mandates and use are not associated with slower state-level COVID-19 spread during COVID-19 growth surges.”
So, as we have known for quite some time, the narrative that masks “save lives” or whatever else is utterly fictitious and they provide seemingly little to no protection from the virus.
However, there are good news for those who do actually get the virus (particularly seeing as 99.9% of people tend to survive it).
A different study, this time from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that “months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies for a while.”
One narrative among the many that came about from this pandemic is that those who get the virus do not get permanent immunity from it. This was a narrative spawned to argue that even those who have had the virus still need to get vaccinated. However, much like the other narratives, this one is also false.
Matter of fact, the study sort of acknowledges this false narrative:
“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived. But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”
The study also goes into a more in-depth analysis of how our body fights the virus once we have had it, talking about cells which patrol the bloodstreams for the virus and cells which work in the bone marrow to trickle out antibodies for decades.
This is generally how the body works and why sane people talk about herd immunization outside of vaccinations. Prior to a vaccine being available for public consumption, herd immunization is the best defense against such viruses. Usually, that plan is no longer necessary if there is a vaccine which treats the virus, but we have no such vaccines. We have Chinese coronavirus vaccines, but as we have known for a while, they do not actually treat the virus and, as we have learned from the previous article, have an 11x higher likelihood of killing someone than the virus itself.
So those are two studies which, in a sane world, would put to rest the narratives and ideas that mask mandates/usage are beneficial and that natural immunization is not long-lasting. We see evidence to the contrary for both cases with both of these studies. But as we live in an insane world and those involved in this pandemic are ideologically and/or financially tied to it, there will be those who call these studies “conspiracy theories” as they usually do.
“Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.”
It isn’t enough that the Left worships themselves or golden idols (like the Oscars or other awards), but they feel they must also force children to partake in their pagan activities, it seems.
The “Global Vaccine Poem” project forces children to “Read the model poem ‘Dear Vaccine’ written by Naomi Shihab Nye, then choose a prompt to respond to. Add a few lines of your words. Don’t worry about rhyming, don’t worry about grammar or spelling. Simply share your thoughts.”
The “Dear Vaccine” poem reads as follows:
“Save us, dear vaccine.
Take us seriously.
We had plans.
We were going places.
Children in kindergarten.
So many voices, in chorus.
Give us our world again!
Tiny gleaming vials,
enter our cities and towns
shining your light.
Restore us to each other.
We liked our lives.
Maybe we didn’t thank them enough.
Being able to cross streets
with people we didn’t know,
pressing elevator buttons,
smiling at strangers,
standing in line to pay.
We liked standing in line
more than we pretended.
It’s a quick prick in the arm.
You’ll barely notice it.
It’s the gas in the car.
Getting us going again.
It’s the turn in the road.
It’s the hug. Forever,
it’s the hug!
Vaccine, please make the air clean!
We went to yoga classes,
deep collective breathing,
in small rooms in cities
where we didn’t even
live! How brave we were.
Restore our lives.
Believe they were beautiful.”
Aside from this poem being terrible, it reeks of pagan cultism. It asks that a vaccine – a medical product created for the purposes of combatting the virus (and doesn’t really even do that) – do something which it is powerless to do: restore people’s lives.
They treat the vaccine like a literal god, asking and basically praying to it that it would renew the world and “free us”, as though it were Jesus Christ on the cross. Now do you understand why we say that the Left treats science like a religion? They have their deity of choice for the time being: the vaccine. They have their prophets like Fauci, and their cardinals like Biden.
They force their children to partake in this lunacy, giving agency and power to something which has no power. Again, even for the very purposes of the vaccine, it has no power or ability to combat the Chinese coronavirus, seeing as people still get it after getting jabbed.
And this project, by the way, is endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers union, which has long insisted that schools cannot possibly reopen unless all the children and staff are vaccinated, despite the fact that THE CDC says that the vaccines are only approved for people 12 and older, so younger kids shouldn’t be getting the vaccine (no one should, I’d argue, but particularly younger kids).
The AFT tweeted: “In elementrary [sic] schools, until we have the vaccines, it seems like unfortuantely [sic] we still [sic] going to have to keep wearing our masks and keep social distancing because we don’t want outbreaks.”
Utterly ironic and perhaps even emblematic of the worthlessness of these teachers’ unions and our current educational system that the AFT made multiple grammar and spelling errors in that single tweet. Maybe it’s not just the kids who need to go back to the classrooms.
Oh, and by the way, that strategy of not going back until they have the vaccines runs contrary to the advice of the CDC, which has said that schools are allowed to reopen without anyone, even the teachers, getting vaccinated, also arguing that teachers have a higher risk of getting the Chinese coronavirus outside of school than inside it.
So not only are they failing English here, they are also failing science. And these are some of the same people who accused others of being “science deniers” if they even remotely questioned the actions, advice and motivations of the CDC and WHO. Are we, then, to believe that these teachers are science deniers? Yes, by all standards, but now, also by their own.
The truth is that these vaccines stand to be far more dangerous than the virus is in itself.
You see, according to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), between late December of 2020 and April 23rd, so more than a month ago at this point, a total of 3,362 people have seemingly died after getting the vaccines in the U.S. With an average of 30 deaths a day, a bit closer to today’s date, the death toll is now more than 4,000 people.
So, according to the CDC’s database, over 4,000 people have died since last December after getting the Chinese coronavirus. This is significant for the simple reason that no other vaccine has ever reached such a figure in such a short amount of time.
Every flu season, over 160 million Americans receive influenza shots, and every year, the death toll from such shots is rather miniscule. In 2019, 203 people died after getting the flu shot. In 2018, the number was 119. In 2017, only 85 people died after getting jabbed. And those numbers are for the ENTIRE YEAR. It’s been roughly five months since December, closer to six (depending on when exactly VAERS began counting) and the number of deaths is GARGANTUAN in comparison to other vaccines.
And according to Tucker Carlson, in just the first four months of 2021, the U.S. government “has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013. That’s a period of fifteen and a half years.”
But wait, because it gets even worse. The matter of fact is that VAERS is not a particularly trustworthy or reliable system. When I used it, I searched for people who were vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine (the reason I use that name will become immediately obvious) back in the year 1921, at the earliest. Not people who were necessarily BORN in 1921 and may have recently gotten the shot. No, it’s people who RECEIVED the COVID-19 vaccine in the year 1921, 98 years before there was a COVID-19 virus.
However, that’s just one example of it being untrustworthy and unreliable. Now, you might be thinking why I’m bringing this up, since this is the system that I’m using to base the idea that the vaccines are more dangerous than the virus.
Here’s the reason: according to a report submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) back in 2010, “fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported” to the CDC through the VAERS system. Such adverse events include death following vaccination, so that roughly 4,000 figure is possibly a MASSIVE undercount, according to the HHS itself. So it’s possible that the actual number is somewhere closer to 400,000, give or take.
Worldometers says that the Chinese coronavirus has accounted for 3.5 million deaths worldwide. However, as I have explained in prior articles, the CDC overreports Chinese coronavirus deaths, and only 6% are actually from the virus directly. Now, that’s just in the U.S. since the CDC is strictly an American department. However, since the U.S. has the most reported deaths at 605,000+, taking six percent of that nets us a little over 36,000. So, in all likelihood, the actual worldwide number might be 2.9 million (assuming that other countries didn’t mess up their reporting, which we know isn’t the case, seeing as China stopped counting sometime in early 2020 to appear competent on the world stage).
But focusing specifically on the U.S., since, again, the CDC and therefore the VAERS are strictly American, you can see that FAR more people have died in the States from the vaccine than from the virus. 400,000 vaccine deaths compared to 36,000 from the virus. ELEVEN TIMES as many people have died in the U.S. from getting the vaccine (again, in just five or six months) than from getting the virus (in the last year, year and a half since this virus came to America).
And children are supposed to not only take it (which goes against the advice of the CDC), thereby risking their own lives, but they are supposed to practically WORSHIP IT as though it was the Messiah Himself?!
Forcing children to write love poems about anyone is idiotic and disturbing enough, but to force them to write “love poems” to an inanimate and impotent object like the vaccine is literal idolatry, at this point. Not particularly surprising, since this is the Left we’re talking about, but it’s disgusting that they are forcing children to partake in their sinful lifestyles.
May God help the children subjected to this crap and may He punish the idolaters and abusers of children.
1 John 5:21
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
I have, for a long time, noted that the biggest enemy of black America is the Democrat Party, what with their insistence on committing genocide on the black race via abortions and seeking to eradicate the “weeds”. And one former NBA player, former No. 1 overall pick Kwame Brown, seemingly agrees with me.
In a video he took while driving in his car (I won't link to it since it's on Twitter), Brown sounded off on the Democrat party which was supposed to do things like “end racism” but has absolutely nothing to show for it, and calls out black people in the Democrat party for being hypocrites and attacking other black people if said black people express an opinion which does not align with the Democrat party’s.
“Motherf***ers crazy. Can’t talk one policy, can’t say one thing,” began the former No. 1 pick. “Look here, I said a long time ago. I got people calling my phone all the time. I got, I don’t know how the hell all these people get my number, the Democratic registry and all this s**t. ‘Are you voting for Joe Biden?’ I say, ‘well what is his policies?’ ‘He gon’ let you know. You can go online.’ I went online, I saw tax [inaudible] and I saw this and I saw that. I don’t [video and audio briefly cut out] for black America. What’s going on? ‘Oh, we going to talk about-‘ Oh, no, I ain’t, I’m not here to debate, I’ll call you back. Like s**t, I don’t want to hear that s**t. I’m not one of them scared n*groes. I’m me.”
“You get on the [phone] line and try to talk all smart, ‘well, ya know. I went to school and I-‘ oh yeah, you did, you went to school and all that, ok yeah,” Brown continued. “You been voting for the Democrats this whole time, well so have I and everybody else and what do we have to show for it? ‘Well, you know, they try to combat racism.’ Well why the f**k they ain’t do it in 60 years then?”
A very good question to ask for those who have not come to fully understand the aims and goals of the Democrat Party.
For one, the Democrat Party feeds off of the “racism” crap to get people to vote for them. They call their opponents racist, and the fake news media will back them up on this, so they get to confuse a bunch of people who still watch them and get them to think that if someone is a Republican or a conservative, they are automatically a racist.
But the other thing is that the Democrats are the ones PROPAGATING racism, while claiming to be fighting against it. Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, etc. are all ploys which make them appear to be fighting against racism, but using racism and just directing it towards white people (and as I have explained before, it still hurts non-whites as well).
They make b.s. claims after b.s. claims of racism where none is to be found because they WANT to pretend as though we are still in the era of the Civil Rights Movement.
Fellow NBA player LeBron James, back in August of 2020, did another round of pretending to be sophisticated and educated by reading the first few pages of Malcolm X’s autobiography, and when asked about it, he said: “[Malcolm X was] a very smart man. His words & what was going on in the 1960s is what’s going on today, still…”
Whether he said that because he believes it or because it would advance his Leftist cause is irrelevant. That anyone would claim that we are in a similar situation, racially, today as we were back in the 1960s is utterly preposterous. Today, one can barely find examples of actual, real-life racism. It’s why so many minorities, for some reason, create racism hoaxes, such as sending themselves racist, threatening letters or messages.
There is so little racism in today’s age that people have to INVENT instances of overt racism. Now, that being said, it’s not like there aren’t actual racists and white supremacists out there – there are. I have seen some in some social media platforms and have actually debated with one who repeatedly claimed that Hitler did what was right, that the white race is superior to all others, and that the reason for majority-black cities like Chicago and Detroit being crapholes is because they are majority black, not because they keep voting for Democrats and implementing Democrat policies. So it’s not like racism doesn’t exist, but it is so infrequent as to be practically, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.
To claim that America in 2021 is as racist (towards black people, because that is the context LeBron is using) as it was in the 1960s and prior is utterly ridiculous. And yet, that’s the claim he makes. They make themselves and others believe that racism is utterly rampant in the country, and bafflingly, that the best solution to anti-minority racism is anti-white racism (which, again, still negatively affects minorities in practice).
Racism flows through the Democrat party’s veins. They can’t live without it, but are aware enough that there are extremely negative connotations with that word, so they attempt to make themselves look like they are the opposite of racists and that they will combat racism, despite having both propagated anti-black racism and anti-white racism (and attempting to genuinely make the case that the latter is justified).
They haven’t done a damn thing about racism in 60 years because they 1) are the ones propagating that racism and 2) can benefit politically by the perceived existence of rampant racism.
In any case, Brown continued: “’Well, you know, it’s still work-‘ Man, I don’t want to hear that s**t. I don’t want to hear it. I’m up to here with all these excuses that people make… I’m just so tired. You fake woke n*gros man, y’all, y’all are the worst thing to the black community. You fake woke n****s won’t allow independent thought, because I don’t care who you vote for. I ain’t never cuss nobody out for voting for the Democratic party, I ain’t ever called anyone a coon or a disrespectful name, none of that. You mother***** are, you guys do that… y’all are the new version of the KKK. White folks don’t got to do nothing. You all are the new version of the KKK because you try to intimidate. You try to exile black folks and you try to cancel them because they don’t agree with you and that’s sad.”
“You act like you doing something righteous for doing that, ‘the Democratic Party is our people!’ So, you going to hurt another black man for the white people that you like? You a fool.”
And he’s absolutely right. When Republican Senator Tim Scott, who is black, gave a rebuttal to Occupier Biden’s address to Congress, a Democrat from Texas called him an “Oreo”, referring to how he was black on the outside, but supposedly “white” on the inside. Basically, accusing Scott of being a racist white man wearing black skin.
And that is FAR from the only example of a black Republican being called a coon, an Uncle Tom (despite the fact that Uncle Tom is the hero of that story) or generally a race traitor for simply holding a differing thought to the Democrat Party.
The Left still believes that black people are theirs to own, politically if not physically. Like I have said for a long time, the Left still has a slave-owner’s mentality when it comes to black people. Following their shameful defeat in the Civil War, where they attempted to keep their slaves and failed to do so, they sought to oppress the newly-freed blacks with the implementation of Jim Crow laws, segregation and “three-fifths” principles. Having lost their ability to continue openly treating black people like crap, they continued to implement Jim Crow-like policies to get black people into ghettos and make them financially dependent on the government, and particularly, the Democrat Party.
Oh, and let’s not forget the intimidation tactics of the KKK against blacks to get them to stop supporting Republicans and begin supporting Democrats.
They have gone from physically owning black people to financially owning them.
I’m glad that Kwame Brown is beginning to recognize this and speaking out about it. Too bad that those still in the NBA either are too afraid to speak out or have their pockets too deeply tied with Leftist causes to speak out against their masters.
“Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness.”
It is often the case that what the government intends with a particular plan, the opposite intended effect ends up occurring. Ludwig von Mises explained this particular phenomenon using the example of the price of milk while addressing the University Club in New York back in 1950:
“The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.”
In essence, what he explains is that the results of central planning by governments will often end up creating the opposite intended effect (provided they actually intended to improve the situation and not make things worse). This is what has recently happened in the State of Hawaii, which is seeking to fully transition to “renewable energy” by the year 2045 and replace their last coal power plant with The Kapolei Energy Storage Facility, which is basically an enormous battery.
The intent was to have this “green” battery, powered by wind, solar, etc., replace the output of the coal power plant (it’s a 185-megawatt storage facility compared to the 180-megawatt coal plant, so it generates more power, which is good) and make the state a little bit “greener.”
However, there are seemingly unintended issues and consequences coming as a result of the use of this battery. Namely, the issue of delays to renewable projects. This is a problem for two reasons:
First, as Pacific Business News reported back in March, the delays “will leave Oahu (the island where this is taking place) with a very tight fuel reserve margin, opening up the possibility of rolling blackouts in the event of failure.”
In essence, it could potentially lead to the same problems that Los Angeles had been facing some time ago, where they simply had no power at all.
Second, and the biggest problem for those who viewed the battery as an environmentally friendly alternative to coal, is that “If there is not enough solar, wind, or battery storage energy to replace the [coal] plant, [Hawaiian Electric Co.] would have to use oil instead to charge things like the upcoming 185-megawatt Kapolei Energy Storage Facility,” according to Pacific Business News.
Now, here’s the thing: Pacific Business News is being rather deceptive here. They phrase the issue as an “if” situation. The reality is, however, that there isn’t enough solar, wind, or battery storage to replace the coal plant with a renewable source of energy. Which brings us to the biggest dilemma for those who are ideologically invested in the success of this project: Hawaiian Electric Co. will have to use OIL to power the giant battery.
But wait, it gets worse for these people. Not only will they be substituting one fossil fuel source for another, they will be substituting one fossil fuel source for a MORE EXPENSIVE fossil fuel source. This led to Public Utilities Commission chair James Griffin to complain that Hawaiians would be “going from cigarettes to crack.”
“Oil prices don’t have to be much higher for this to look like the highest increase people will have experienced. And it’s not acceptable. We have to do better,” continued Griffin.
Returning to Mises, this whole ordeal is exemplary of the phenomenon I had talked about earlier. “The measure proves abortive from the very point of view of the government and the groups it was eager to favor. It brings about a state of affairs, which – again from the point of view of the government – is even less desirable than the previous state of affairs which it was designed to improve.”
Certainly, intending to replace fossil fuel with renewable energy and ending up not only using another fossil fuel source, but also one which is even more expensive than the source which they were trying to replace is absolutely less desirable not only for those in the government and environmentalist whackos, but everyone whom this affects. After all, if the government is going for a more expensive source of fuel, they have to do something to afford it and still operate normally. This, almost always, involves the raising of taxes on the population.
So this entire situation is a raw deal for the government which seemingly wanted to improve their renewable energy use, for those who originally approved of this transition because they believed it would be “better for the planet”, and for those who couldn’t care less if they were using fossil fuels or renewable energies to power things up but who will soon have to fork over more of their hard-earned cash to a government which has screwed them, intentionally or not.
What is perhaps the most unfortunate part of all of this is that many people will not learn the most important lessons to be learned out of this: central planning from the government is pretty much always a bad thing.
This has been shown to be the case in Germany (more than once), in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Russia (both now and when they were the Soviet Union and militarized the workplace to try to mitigate strikes in factories and “restore order” but it only led to more strikes, particularly in the areas most militarized), China, most countries in Latin America, and in many places in the U.S. And yet, this crucial lesson is not always learned by some people, even those who experience such central planning.
Even assuming the absolute best intentions by the government (and that requires a whole lot, knowing the evil nature of Man), it often only ends up getting in the way of the progress it seeks to create, even ending up creating regress as a result.
Like with the example provided by Mises of trying to control the price of milk for the sake of poor people, but only creating a shortage of milk in the process and making things worse for the poor, or like with the example of the current situation in Oahu, Hawaii, even under the best circumstance regarding the true intentions of the government, the government ends up making things worse, not better.
The words of Ronald Reagan ring very much true in this instance: “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
“A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor, but he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.”
As I have said for a long time now, the key to ensuring the future of the country is in the kind of curricula that schools implement, and if we want to raise patriots, patriotic curricula must be implemented in said schools. This is something the Left has understood for even longer than the Right has, and currently has a monopoly on what children are taught. One school district in Upstate New York demonstrates this perfectly well, though they are far from the only example.
Fairport Central School District in Monroe County, Rochester, New York partnered with a “social justice” consulting firm in order to implement a new race-based curriculum which indoctrinates children into being massive racists and patting themselves on the back for believing they are “anti-racists.”
According to the curriculum, fourth-grade students must be able to “understand, discuss, and identify examples of racism, segregation, and anti-racism.” Students were also shown images of children protesting as an example of “anti-racism.”
What is perhaps most interesting to me, however, is their insistence that New York schools are the “most segregated schools in the country,” and they proceed to show slides of housing segregation maps of Monroe County, and the students were asked to explain how such “redlining” has affected where they live.
There are a few things I want to say about this. First of all, according to The Daily Wire, the redlining maps shown to students were from 1935, well before the Civil Rights Act eliminated segregation. So these people are, expectedly, outright lying and gaslighting their students, teaching them things which are demonstrably false.
Secondly, let’s pretend for a moment that they aren’t lying here and that Monroe County is a segregationist, racist county which separates whites from minorities both in housing and schooling. Do you want to know which political party largely rules in this county, let alone the entire state? No points for guessing right, as it should be as clear as the sky: the Democrat Party.
So assuming that these “teachers” are correct and that Monroe County still segregates students in school and people in houses, wouldn’t that be the fault of the Democrats whom have run that county for years?
Monroe County has voted for every Democrat presidential candidate since Bill Clinton in 1992, with Joe Biden having “won” (even in a largely blue county, I’m compelled to still put quotation marks around that word, even if I’m more willing to believe he legitimately won that county) the county with 60% of the vote (more than Obama by a percentage point, another reason I’m putting quotations around “won”).
If Monroe County is particularly racist when it comes to forced segregation of housing and schooling (again, a demonstrable lie due to the fact that the Civil Rights Act is a thing, though it’s easier to trick kids than adults), then that would mean it’s the fault of racist and segregationist Democrats who hold power there, no?
For the past nearly 14 years, a Democrat has been the governor of the state of New York, and since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there have been 5 Democrat governors to 2 Republicans (technically 3, since a Republican was governor for a few years before and about a decade after the passage of this bill), with those Democrats amassing roughly 34 years (give or take some days) in power, compared to 22 years of Republican governorship in New York since the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
If in 34 total years, more than 10 of which are because of the current governor, Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York still has the “most segregated schools in the country,” exactly whose fault is that? Which party has been ruling that state for over a decade now and has had PLENTY of opportunity to “desegregate” the schools in New York?
Following this fictitious, asinine logic of these Leftist teachers, should the state of New York be sued for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and segregating the schools? And if so, why aren’t lawyers going through with such lawsuits? Are lawyers in New York also racists and segregationists?
This is what I don’t get about these Leftists: they accuse THEIR OWN STATE of being racist and segregationist, yet completely ignore the fact that THEY ARE THE ONES who have been in control of the state for over a decade, and for a total of roughly 34 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If what they are claiming about their state is true, logic would DEMAND that the people in charge bear responsibility for it, and thus, the Democrats ought to pay for their continued implementation of “systemic racism.”
This is what logic demands, yet this is not where they go at all. And worse still, they manage to trick a whole lot of people that those who have been in power whilst all this “injustice” has been going on should REMAIN in power and obtain even MORE of it as opposed to bearing any sort of blame or responsibility for the “injustice” which they claim.
This is generally how the Democrats operate: create a crisis and claim that they will be the ones to solve it. It doesn’t matter if that crisis is real, like the gas crisis, border crisis, etc. (both of which have come in the past few months, impressing even me at how fast Biden has screwed everything up) or if it is entirely fictional, such as a “segregation” crisis in schooling and housing or a “climate” crisis. They create this crap and pose themselves as the only ones with the ability to solve them, real or not.
It’s nothing but fearmongering in the best circumstance and abusive, Mafia-style coercion in the worst circumstance.
In any case, the Left understands perfectly well that the future of the country will be dictated by whomever is able to affect the hearts and minds of children. If the Left can hold a monopoly on “education”, they will raise entire generations of Marxist communists. The proof is in the fact that they have been doing this for the last 60 years and we have young people actually believing communism is in any way a good thing.
You have young people believing that gender is fluid and not grounded on biological sexual fact, and with curricula like this one, you will have young people believing that some people ought to be treated differently or worse because of their skin color. Used to be that that would be considered “racism” and it would be if the target of such discrimination is not white, but if the target is white, it’s not only not discouraged, but outright encouraged as “anti-racism”.
Let us pray to God that we will be able to undo the deep and serious damage that the Left has created which has driven this country into the arms of the devil.
2 Timothy 3:5
“Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”
It never ceases to amaze me just how immoral, cruel, idiotic and self-assured of their own stupidity people can be. A recent survey from the U.K. only further proves just how fundamentally stupid some people are, and that a medical degree doesn’t mean jack.
A poll of nearly 1,000 women was recently conducted by a charity called “Pregnant Then Screwed” (hell of a name for a charity) which revealed that one in five women, or 20%, who were in labor were ordered to wear a mask by a medical “professional” attending them at the births, including 10% of women who had natural births and 50% who had caesarian section.
This is cruel, idiotic and unscientific for a number of reasons, ranging from common sense reasons to scientific ones.
First of all, one of the main things that a woman is supposed to do while giving birth is breathe. Granted, we are always supposed to do this, but doctors give a particular emphasis on breathing patterns during labor, such as how deep their breaths are supposed to be, how often to do so, etc. Being able to breathe well during labor is imperative. And guess what happens when a woman who is giving birth is forced to wear a mask?
Now, neither the survey nor the subsequent article on BBC News mentioned anything about women passing out, away, or anything horrible like that, which is frankly miraculous, in my opinion. It very well could have happened to any of the women (and might have, as again, there is no mention of it, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened or that it didn’t) and that would have made the situation a whole lot worse for no reason apart from Leftist fearmongering regarding the virus and the wearing of masks, as though masks are borderline the solution to the virus.
One woman said she was very panicked and thought she might throw up in her mask, and another pointed out how she was “gasping for air”: “Someone put the mask on me. I said ‘you can’t be serious,’ and she replied ‘yes,’ and then I remember having a contraction. My body was already in a state of distress, and I tried to remove the mask at one point, but I was told I had to put it back on.” This woman ended up having to have emergency C-Section and was told she had to continue wearing the mask while having the operation.
Now, during a C-section, the mother is not the one exercising any energy or having to do much at all, so one could realistically argue that telling the mother to wear a mask (though still dumb and unnecessary) might be acceptable. During an emergency C-section, the mother is put to sleep using anesthesia, so I could hardly see the point of putting a mask on them here. But during live birth, it makes ZERO sense to have them wearing a mask.
But aside from the common sense arguments for not forcing BIRTHING WOMEN to wear masks, there is also the recommendation laid out in a briefing document made by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RCOG), as well as NHS recommendation, which stated that women who are giving birth are exempt from wearing a facemask. Every hospital in the country ought to be following such recommendations, and yet, 20% of women giving birth are told or forced to wear a mask.
It is utterly asinine, cruel, unscientific and, frankly, criminal, especially if a woman ends up dying as a result. It is utterly unnecessary to force a woman giving birth to wear a mask, and were she to suffer physically, mentally or emotionally, or if she ends up dying as a result, the hospital ought to be sued for such damages.
Matter of fact, the very woman I talked about who required emergency C-Section is said to not be able “to wear any kind of facial covering since giving birth, because it triggers the memory of ‘struggling to breathe’ which she experienced during her labour,” according to BBC News.
While I am generally against the wearing of masks for the healthy, as it is utterly unnecessary and unprecedented in the history of pandemics, you’d think it would be rather counter-productive to cause such psychological harm to a woman to the point where she gets something akin to (or actual) PTSD when trying to put a covering on her face when these people WANT others to wear masks and generally obey the irrational and immoral mask mandates. If she indeed is unable to wear any face coverings, that presents a problem to her in a country which, ashamedly, seems rather content with living out Orwell’s 1984 in the very setting of the book and which mandates mask-wearing for just about all activities.
If she is psychologically incapable of wearing a mask in a place where she is borderline forced to, why should the hospital where she suffered such psychological damage be exempt from liability?
But that’s a matter for the woman herself to deal with. Nevertheless, we see the sort of damage this lunacy and fearmongering has caused. People are legitimately afraid of a virus which has a 99.9% survivability rate for most people to the point where causing psychological harm to others is acceptable, and where potentially causing physical harm to women in labor is also acceptable.
Granted, it’s not every woman who is forced to wear a mask during labor, but the fact that any woman is forced to do so is downright criminal. That it’s this “rare” showcases how erroneous and unfair an act it is.
Those hospitals are running the risk of cutting off the extremely necessary oxygen supply of women giving birth. What kind of doctor, other than Doctor Kevorkian, would put his or her patients in harm’s way like this? It is absolute madness which has the potential to harm a plethora of people, completely unnecessarily.
May God help the women who were forced to wear masks and guide our societies to be more rational about handling the virus.
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered."
It is no secret that globalist, communist-types in various levels of government have been utterly duping the entire world for the last year and a half, roughly, sharing unscientific models that prophesied a doomsday which never came and running contrary to scientific data which demonstrates the inefficacy of mask-wearing and lockdowns.
So it also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the CDC has been misleading people regarding outdoor infections of the Chinese coronavirus (practically all talk of death rates has disappeared seeing as there is such a great survivability rate for basically everyone).
In late April, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said that fewer than 10% of documented Chinese coronavirus transmission cases, as recorded in numerous studies, can be attributed to outdoor transmission. She used this figure to make the point that data suggests “most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors.”
Now, let me say one thing about this: that number is already pretty decent as it is. Even Walensky was using that number to make the point that there is higher transmission indoors as opposed to outdoors. If less than 10% of cases come from being outdoors, that’s already a good argument against lockdowns and “stay-at-home” orders. And while most states have been on the path towards opening back up, and many already have opened up, there are still some semblances of these limitations which, as we can see, end up burdening those states with worse situations than their more opened counterparts.
But even that 10% figure is considerably higher than what reality demonstrates. Even the NYT reported that this 10% figure is “almost certainly misleading” and that it appears to have at least partly been based on misclassified data from Singapore construction sites.
You see, according to the NYT, a study of 10,926 global Chinese coronavirus transmission cases recorded 95 outdoor cases, all of which were in Singapore construction sites. Now, from those numbers alone, one would find that less than 1% of those nearly 11,000 cases came from outdoor cases. And from another study of 103 total cases of transmission, four were found to have been cases of outdoor transmission, all four of which were in Singapore construction sites, and which culminates to 3.8% outdoor transmission.
However, there is a reason I point out that these are from construction sites: Singapore doesn’t classify cases in construction sites according to outdoors or indoors.
According to the NYT: “The Singapore data originally comes from a government database there. That database does not categorize the construction-site cases as outdoor transmission, Yap Wei Qiang, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health, told [the NYT]. ‘We didn’t classify it according to outdoors or indoors,’ Yap said. ‘It could have been workplace transmission where it happens outdoors at the site, or it could also have happened indoors within the construction site.’”
“As [colleague of NYT writer] did further reporting, he discovered reasons to think that many of the infections may have occurred indoors. At some of the individual construction sites where Covid spread – like a complex for the financial firm UBS and a skyscraper project called Project Glory – the concrete shells for the buildings were largely completed before the pandemic began.”
“Because Singapore is hot year-round, the workers would have sought out the shade of enclosed spaces to hold meetings and eat lunch together… Electricians and plumbers would have worked in particularly close contact.”
So basically, what the CDC had done is overreport the number of possible outdoor transmission cases from data sets which include studies which show not only extremely minimal outdoor cases, but which might not even be considered correct, as such cases came from construction sites and Singapore doesn’t classify transmission from such sites as having occurred either indoors or outdoors.
Naturally, since even the NYT called her out on this attempt to mislead the public, Walensky responded to the report, arguing that the figure was taken from a top-line meta-analysis published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases: “All studies that were included in the systematic review said less than 10% of cases were transmitted outdoors.”
Interestingly, the NYT responded to her response, calling out the misleading nature of such a figure: “Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving.”
The CDC again responded to the NYT, arguing that the 10% figure is just a “conservative estimate” and that there is “limited data on outdoor transmission,” so they choose to err “on the side of protection when it comes to recommending steps to protect health.”
The obvious problem with this argument is that one could very easily use it for just about any other potential risk in the world. One could argue that, because of the potential for being struck by lightning in a given year, it’s better to err on the side of “caution” and stay indoors throughout the year, as technically speaking, there is a less than 10% chance of someone being struck by lightning. In reality, the chances are 0.00008%. Technically less than 10%, but one wouldn’t rationally argue that someone only has a less than 10% chance of being struck by lightning.
Similarly, one might argue that there is a less than 10% chance of dying by falling off the bed. Technically true, but hardly anyone would argue that we should begin sleeping on the floor instead, as reality shows there is only a 0.0005% chance of dying by falling off the bed.
Even though the CDC director is admittedly pushing for the fact that indoor transmission happens more than outdoor transmission (NY Gov. Cuomo was very surprised, recently, when data collected from 113 hospitals showed that 66% of transmission cases came from people who were staying at home; yet another piece of evidence to show how devastatingly incorrect the approach to the pandemic was by many governments), what Walensky is doing ultimately is using misleading at best and deceiving at worst data which make the risk sound worse than it actually is.
Yes, technically, there is a less than 10% chance of transmitting the virus outdoors, but as we discussed earlier, it’s utterly misleading. What is also technically true is that less than 99% of transmission cases come from outdoors, but that makes it look like it’s a borderline death sentence to be outdoors.
So if the CDC plays this fast and loose with figures relating to just outdoor versus indoor transmission cases, I wonder what other data they half-assed and passed on to the public with little regard to its veracity.
As more time goes on, the people who claim we must “trust the science” show that they themselves are utterly untrustworthy.
“The words of his mouth are trouble and deceit; he has ceased to act wisely and do good.”
The Left, following a series of shootings in March, was really hoping to see increased support for their gun-grabbing desires in the fake news polls, so that they might have a “green light” to go forth with such legislation, but things didn’t exactly go their way with a recent WaPo poll.
Back in 2018, according to the WaPo, by a margin of 57 to 34, people supported the idea of prioritizing “laws to reduce gun violence” over “protecting the right to own guns.”
Before I go further, I want to point out the misleading wording the WaPo and all fake news organizations tend to use in order to rig these polls in their favor. Note how the WaPo didn’t phrase it as prioritizing “laws to increase gun control” or anything like that, but “laws to reduce gun violence.”
I’ve pointed this out in a previous article, but this is how these people “debate”. They don’t argue issues, but they frame issues a certain way so as to make it favorable to them and make it look like their position is reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to reduce gun violence, right? Only criminals and sick people would not want to reduce gun violence (a term which is misleading in itself, as it makes it look like guns are sentient beings capable of killing people of their own accord).
This is actually how communists generally tend to phrase things so that they appeared in their favor. Back in early 1918, as the Soviet Union was beginning to form, their secret police (or at least, one of its iterations), the Cheka, had to break a strike by state employees in Petrograd. The Cheka arrested the leaders of the strike, though Isaac Steinberg, a Socialist Revolutionary himself, and a man with the title of “The People’s Commissar for Justice”, objected to that action, attempting to argue the legality of the Cheka. He wrote to Lenin: “What is the point of a ‘People’s Commissariat for Justice’? It would be more honest to have a People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination. People would understand more clearly.” To which Lenin replied: “Excellent idea. That’s exactly how I see it. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t do to call it that!”
Lenin knew precisely what the point of that “legal” position was: to legitimize the soviets’ actions. At the time, some people like Felix Dzerzhinksy frankly cared little for the legality of it all, arguing that it was just “the nitpicking legalism of the old school of the ancient regime,” but others understood that they had to at least make their actions seem relatively legitimate. And so, they named things like a “People’s Commissariat for Justice” that way, despite their intentions being that it would, effectually, be a “People’s Commissariat for Social Extermination.”
Similarly, the modern Left makes their gun-grabbing position seem reasonable and legitimate by painting it as “a measure to reduce gun violence” when, in actuality and evidenced by real life, their position leads to MORE gun violence. Just look at Democrat-run cities with extreme gun control measures to see that this is true. It’s no coincidence that the cities with the heaviest gun control measures are cities with the highest gun-related crime rates.
Chicago, a gun-control heavy city, recently saw 26 people shot over Mother’s Day weekend, which is about par for the course for Chicago weekends.
And in Portland, Oregon, according to The Epoch Times, Portland Police have responded to nearly 360 shootings so far THIS YEAR. Again, it’s no coincidence at all that these things happen in Democrat-run cities.
At any rate, the “figures” that the WaPo showed in 2018 were pretty bad for 2A supporters and good for the gun-grabbing Leftists (despite the fact that, even just with that little excerpt from that poll, it’s clear that it was rigged). However, since then, things have been going in the wrong direction for the Left.
While they enjoyed a “23-point” advantage in 2018, that advantage plummeted to just “7.” I put those numbers in quotation marks because it’s reasonable that these are still rigged polls and that the numbers are even worse for the Left.
Not only has support for gun control measures plummeted in the last few years, but it has particularly come down among young people and Hispanics, two demographics which tend to be pretty Leftist.
In April of 2018, 65% of people aged 18-29 said they supported more gun control laws, particularly “red flag” laws and limits on magazine capacity. Fast-forward to 2021, and that number plummeted to 45%, a full 20 points.
According to Newsweek: “The preference for enacting new gun laws aimed at reducing firearm violence has dropped by 7 percent overall since the last corresponding survey was conducted in April 2018. Percentage drops were seen in nearly every demographic divide. In that time period, 20 percent of Hispanics pulled back from supporting new gun laws, falling to 50 percent. An increase in rural Americans also now say they want no new gun restrictions, down 17 points to 30 percent.”
So not only has overall support for gun control measures fallen 16 points (supposedly), but among young Americans and Hispanics, it has fallen even more, by 20 points (supposedly)?
It’s reasonable to ask what exactly has led to this sort of drop, as there has to be a reason for it. But I highly doubt one needs to look very hard for such a reason.
Leftists perpetrated hundreds of riots across numerous cities in the country, ultimately killing around 30 people, and causing billions of dollars in damage for the individual cities, let alone total. Riots which were encouraged by elected officials and the fake news media, so long as the riots didn’t affect them in the least bit. And even when it did, such as the riot which affected CNN’s HQ in Atlanta, they still continued to encourage them, believing it would reflect poorly on TRUMP, until polls came out that showed people, in fact, didn’t appreciate their cities being ransacked by the Bitchygoths.
With such Democrat-approved destruction and violence, we saw massive increases in gun sales for a number of months (coupled with the fact that people were unconstitutionally forced to stay at home and lock things down, which definitely didn’t help) and an increase in first-time gun buyers. It’s no wonder, then, that so many people are less keen on making it harder for LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS to acquire guns.
With Antifa and BLM terrorists running around cities and, sometimes, residential neighborhoods, terrorizing the places where they went, it’s no wonder that people wished to acquire means by which they could be safe and protect the ones they care about.
There are other potential reasons for this as well, as Breitbart News points out, though I myself am not so sure about them. One potential reason John Nolte of Breitbart gives is that young Americans are wired to be rebellious. As they see that the establishment, which includes not only the government but also the fake news media, pop culture, academia, etc., is all skewed toward one political ideology, Nolte argues that young people, being rebellious, will rebel against that.
There is merit to this idea, as American teenagers tend to rebel and are often encouraged to rebel, but seeing as the Left has been indoctrinating American teenagers with Leftist dribble for decades now, I’m not entirely certain that that is the case. If this were the case, young Americans would be more conservative regarding other issues, not just gun control. Yet, they likely will tend to support, even if because of social pressure, things like homosexuality and transgenderism.
Young Americans aged 18-29 usually are leaving the nest or already have, and so recognize that, in a country with increased violence and crime, they have to be able to defend themselves, as they have to be a bit more independent from their parents regarding safety.
Though such an explanation might not necessarily suffice for why so many Hispanics have stopped supporting gun control laws, but my first theory might still be applicable. BLM and Antifa have terrorized whomever they could, and are emboldened by the fact they are so quickly released from jail following their actions. When you have terrorists who are being sponsored by the government to continue their terrorism, it’s only natural that people of all races would want to protect themselves, seeing as the government refuses to do its job.
Let us continue to hope and pray that we see even greater numbers of people, particularly young people, turn away from Leftist bullcrap that runs contrary to God and to nature and which only serves to destroy people.
“It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the righteous of justice.”
Following the end of the Second World War, the world was made fully aware of what had transpired at select concentration camps throughout Europe. Genocide was the only word which could describe it, though it was hardly used before such atrocities were known. Upon finding this out, the world said “never again.” As I have pointed out in previous articles, it is clear that the world lied, because China is doing much the same what Nazi Germany did, though with a different target.
As far as we know, there are roughly one million Uyghurs in concentration camps in China, likely alongside many Christians, seeing as the CCP has no regard for any religion which does not see Xi as their deity. I say “as far as we know” because it wouldn’t be surprising if the actual number is considerably higher, and with different groups of people.
On December 17, 1942, following reports of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning such plans and declared that they would punish the perpetrators, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. The full extent of the Nazis’ intent on destroying the Jews was not fully known, however, until after the war and the Allies liberated the camps. The world had an excuse for not having prevented or stopped The Holocaust: they largely didn’t know about it. They knew the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews, but didn’t know what they were already doing.
The world, however, has no excuse for not doing something about the genocide that the CCP is perpetrating not only against Uyghurs but also, in all likelihood, Christians and anyone they consider “enemies of the state.” Remember also that it wasn’t just the Jews that the Nazis put into concentration camps, but also people whom they considered to have been “enemies of the Reich.” The parallels between China and Nazi Germany are obvious.
However, it does not appear to be so obvious to some people, as woke professors from Columbia University and Middlesex University in London co-authored an op-ed in Project Syndicate arguing that what’s happening in China’s concentration camps against the Uyghurs should not be called a “genocide.”
They also argue that China is perfectly justified in taking action against Uyghurs, arguing that the CCP views them in the same manner as Americans viewed terrorists following the 9/11 attacks. "We must understand the context of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang, which had essentially the same motivation as America's foray into the Middle East and Central Asia after the September 2001 attacks: to stop the terrorism of militant Islamic groups." You can tell how bad these people are at pushing their side with such flimsy argumentation.
Following the 9/11 attacks, radical Islamic terrorists were targeted by the U.S. precisely because they are radical Islamic terrorists. It would be silly to argue that their religious faith had nothing to do with it, as it is such a religious faith that led such people to commit the atrocities that they did, but the United States NEVER waged war against Islam in itself. Make no mistake, the “religion of peace” is a cult of death and nothing more. However, that isn’t to say that all people belonging to that religion are going to commit terrorist acts. What the CCP is doing is outright persecution and execution of Uyghurs because they have been wanting a separate state, or at least independence, from China.
The CCP views Uyghurs as a threat to their country, or at least, that’s the excuse they give, much like how the Nazis would blame the Jews for all things bad, including losing the First World War. The Nazis hated the Jews because, in large part, Jews tended to be capitalists and the Nazis were socialists. Similar to how the KKK hated Republicans and targeted black people because they were Republicans at the time, the Nazis hated capitalists and targeted the Jews as a result. What the CCP is doing is taking a page out of their book, just painting it with a “nicer” brush and claiming it’s for “national security.”
At any rate, getting back to Dumb and Dumber, they recognize that there are “credible charges of human rights abuses” against the Uyghurs, but they don’t believe the U.S. has proven that what’s going on in that country constitutes as genocide.
Ironically, however, the duo does recognize the following, which is a point I was about to make and which utterly decimates their flimsy arguments: “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group” is considered an act of genocide under the Geneva Convention.
But it’s not just the Geneva Convention where genocide is defined in this way. A more immediate convention, the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (December 9th, 1948) defines genocide in the following manner: “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Given the nature of the communists, and given the excuse of “national security”, it is easy to imagine that the CCP has killed members of the Uyghurs whom have resisted their “re-education” propaganda attempts. Naturally, since this is ongoing and highly secretive, I can’t say for certain that this has been happening, but it’s not a massive leap in logic to assume that the CCP is killing Uyghurs. But even if the first definition is not applicable, just about all the others are.
There have been numerous reports of escapees where they give accounts as to what happens in those camps, which cause serious bodily and/or mental harm, such as torture, rape, forced labor, etc.
The third definition is less clear-cut, but one can interpret it as forcing upon Uyghurs conditions which would bring about their destruction at least in part, which is achieved through the concentration camps.
The fourth definition is definitely the easiest to prove, as forced sterilization has been shown to occur.
The final definition could well also be applicable, in one way or another. According to The Guardian, in 2018, there were nearly 10,000 mostly Uyghur children who were classified as experiencing either “single hardship” or “double hardship”, meaning that one or both parents are held in concentration camps.
Researcher on this atrocity, Adrian Zenz, who was the first to indicate that roughly a million Uyghurs were held in concentration camps, said that “Beijing’s strategy to subdue its restive minorities in Xinjiang is shifting away from internment and towards mechanisms of long-term social control.” In other words, the CCP is looking to control the hearts and minds of the young Uyghurs and have them grow up to be loyal to the Party.
Whether one would wish to classify that as the final definition of genocide is arguable, but also irrelevant at this point. The CCP, according to the Geneva Convention, the UN’s Convention of 1948, the French criminal code, and any human rights convention that followed the discovery and condemnation of the Holocaust, is committing nothing short of genocide against whole groups of people.
For anyone to assert otherwise, they would have to be one of three things: a member of the CCP, a paid associate of the CCP, or a complete and utter moron. Given how many college professors have been found in recent years to have been taking money from China, it wouldn’t be surprising if the professors of that op-ed were taking money from China as well.
Of course, that last option is a possibility, as college professors tend to be morons, too stupid and arrogant to recognize their idiocy. This is particularly possible given that they themselves pointed out that forced sterilization, something which China has been proven to be doing, constitutes genocide under the Geneva Convention. Nothing like undermining your own argument, huh?
“If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and righteousness, do not be amazed at the matter, for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them.”
The Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and hypocrites. They believe themselves to be knights in shining armor for minorities and have massive savior complexes, and then proceed to accuse other people of doing exactly what they routinely do. One such example is of a self-described teacher from Los Angeles who harassed a Hispanic police officer as he was trying to enforce the law regarding driving while using a phone.
An unidentified woman, who is a self-described teacher, and who was driving a white Mercedes-Benz (pretty luxurious for a teacher, a profession which I’m repeatedly told gets paid in peanuts), was stopped by a Hispanic police officer for using her phone while driving.
In the released body-cam footage, one can see and hear the woman talking with the officer before he even fully approached her window, and proceeded to launch into a racist, anti-cop tirade.
The exchange went as follows:
The woman is first heard saying: “… harassed today because I was going under the speed limit, I was going at 38… and the speed limit is 40, and I was going 38, so why are you harassing me?”
The officer tried to explain the reason for the traffic stop, but the woman interrupted him and said: “Because you’re a murderer. Oh, yes, I started to record because you’re a murderer.”
Which is quite the gargantuan leap in logic here. However, it’s not like we don’t know the reason behind her accusing him of such. It’s not because the officer is notorious for having killed someone, but because he is generally a police officer. The Left has brainwashed many people, particularly black people, into seeing cops not as enforcers of the law, but of oppression, and people who have no regard for human life and are at the ready to take any at a moment’s notice with zero remorse.
This is the narrative the Left has promoted for a few years now, but particularly following the death of George Floyd while in police custody.
At any rate, getting back to the exchange:
The deputy said: “You can’t be on your cell phone while you’re driving.”
Woman: “I wasn’t on my phone; I was recording you because you scared me.”
The deputy then asked for the woman’s driver’s license, and funny enough, she claims to have forgotten it at her apartment.
Now, the deputy should be given credit for how well he handled the situation. Here he is, getting called a “murderer” by virtue of his profession and nothing else substantial, and the woman levying such accusations is driving without a license. In California, as in all states in the country, it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle without a license. California considers it a criminal misdemeanor, which can carry strict penalties with it, though a first-time offense will usually only lead to a ticket. The deputy could have pressed on this issue, asking her “so you’re driving without a license?” but he actually gives her an out: he asks if she has a picture of her license on her phone, which she does.
Considering this woman was driving while using her phone (and her son is with her in her car, making it even worse) and was outright and unapologetically calling the guy a murderer, it was rather gracious of the officer to give her an out regarding driving without a license. Is she grateful in any way? Of course not, Leftists never are.
At one point, the woman even asks that the deputy call his supervisor. The deputy said: “I already did. He’s on his way.” To which the woman so graciously replied: “Good. Because you’re a murderer.” Which doesn't make much sense to me, seeing as, if she believes cops are murderers and that she is in danger of being killed by one of them, why would she want a supervisor aka another cop on the scene? Well, not like Leftists are rational people.
More of the exchange:
Woman: “And so you’re giving me a cell phone ticket? Is that why you’re harassing me?”
Deputy: “It’s not harassment. I am enforcing the law.”
Woman: “I have a right to and record the police when they’re harassing me.”
Deputy: “By all means, but you can’t do it while you’re driving.”
Eventually, the woman said the following: “And you scared me and made me think you were going to murder me.”
Deputy: “Okay, well, I’m sorry you feel that way.”
Woman: “Well, that’s not just a feeling. You’re a murderer.”
Deputy: “Okay… Can you zoom in on that for me, dear? (referring to the photo of the license on her phone)”
Deputy: “Thank you.”
Woman: “And I’m perfectly legal and I’m a teacher. So there, murderer,” she said in a braggadocious manner.
Woman: “You’re a murderer.”
And so on and so forth the exchange went, with the deputy just trying to do his job and the liberal privileged woman repeatedly calling him a murderer with zero basis for such an accusation.
She even went on to accuse him that “You’re scaring me. You’re threatening to kill me and my son,” despite the fact that the deputy was perfectly polite and professional and didn’t make anything close to a threat.
And as I mentioned earlier, it’s even worse the fact that her son was there. The body-cam footage blurs the woman and you can’t see her son in the car, so I don’t know how old he is, but if he’s old enough to be paying attention, he is seeing how his mom acts towards an officer and how she treats him, and likely was taught that it is okay to do something so awful.
Not to mention that she said she was a teacher, so if that is true, she also has influence over several other children as well, whom she likely is teaching that all police officers are murderers. Granted, at this point, and in Los Angeles in particular, I highly doubt she is the only one. But she is still, in all likelihood, teaching children horrible things and, frankly, how to be thugs as opposed to productive members of society.
In any case, eventually, the deputy’s supervisor shows up, and interestingly enough, the woman stopped calling the deputy a murderer, but began calling him something else.
The supervisor is heard telling the woman: “All he needs is your signature. He’s only citing you for using your cell phone while you’re driving. That’s it.”
Woman: “For him being a Mexican racist. What is that name?”
“Here you go, Mexican racist. You’re always gonna be a Mexican. You’ll never be white, you know that, right? You’ll never be white, which is what you really want to be. You want to be white,” she continued.
She might know something we don’t, but it’s not immediately clear if the officer is actually Mexican as opposed to another Latin American nationality. However, since the woman made so many baseless assumptions (including calling him a racist despite the fact that he never displayed anything of the sort. It’s almost as if calling someone a racist is a reflex for Leftists, like kicking your leg up when a doctor bangs the knee with a hammer), I will assume that she just guessed he was Mexican, and was referring to the Hispanic man as “Mexican,” thereby showing herself as a racist (not that bringing up racism allegations in this manner didn’t make her one already).
At any rate, while I generally have my problems with police from Leftist areas, namely due to the tyrannical enforcement of unconstitutional mandates which aren’t even law, I reasonably have to at least defend this deputy’s actions in this isolated incident. He did everything right, even was gracious enough not to press her on the fact she was DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE, and he was pretty quickly and baselessly repeatedly called a murderer by this highly privileged woman. Worse still, her son, though of unknown age, was there to witness such horrid behavior, which he will believe to be acceptable later on in life (which could drag him down into a life of crime, just because his mom wanted to be “woke”).
This is the kind of behavior the Left PROMOTES and believes to not only be acceptable, but ENCOURAGABLE. They believe more people ought to be this nasty and disgusting with officers.
Now, there are times when one can hardly defend an officer. For example, the officer who killed Daunte Wright because she, somehow, believed she was wielding her non-lethal taser as opposed to her lethal firearm. Another example would be the police force in Calgary, Alberta, Canada whom have acted like the SS in trying to shut down a pastor’s church service. Other such examples exist, which show police officers to be fallible. However, while it is wrong for those officers to do/have done those things, it is equally wrong to paint officers with a wide brush and claim that they are all alike and all exclusively evil.
Not that reason matters to the Left at any rate. Antifa repeatedly exclaims “ACAB” or “All Cops Are Bastards” (ironically, a sexist statement, seeing as there are female officers) and this woman clearly believes that all officers are murderers, if she has no qualms whatsoever about rather quickly levying such an accusation against the deputy.
Like I said, the Left is full of terrible people, liars, deceivers, and every other negative word one could come up with. They care little about the lives of officers, and even believe they ought to be killed if possible. They refuse to see that officers can be fallible, and even when the officers are 100% justified in their actions, such as the one who killed Ma’Khia Bryant, they still attack them and claim that “reform” is necessary.
I have literally seen people claim that, in the case of the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting, they would have shot the knife out of her hand and detain her afterwards. It’s asinine argumentation and derivative of a couch quarterback, whom is certain he would have done everything right in a football game as opposed to the professional athlete.
They have no regard for human life, as evidenced by their promotion of abortion at every stage of the pregnancy (and even more ghoulishly, sometimes promoting AFTER-BIRTH abortion), but also evidenced in how they view and treat police officers.
No, officers aren’t perfect; of course, they aren’t. They are human, after all. But the “solutions” that the Left comes up with are asinine at best and utterly self-destructive at worst for any city and state which tries it (Minneapolis defunded the police, crime immediately skyrocketed, and are now trying to re-fund the police). “Solutions” which are based not on scientific data (which they often claim is crucial in pretty much every other aspect, but even then, they still don’t actually follow the data) but on fake news media narratives which often maliciously spin things for the purposes of an agenda.
For example, 60 Minutes deceptively edited footage from the Ma’Khia Bryant shooting to edit out the knife from her hand, which she was about to use on another (black) woman, in order to make that shooting unjustified and in order to destroy the officer’s life.
The Left, pretty evidently, is the scum of the Earth. No one can really argue with me on this with any sort of actual evidence to the contrary.
“Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it completely.”
We bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...