Submitted by: Int'l Interiors via Edward Moore
7 February 2022______________________________
>J.B. Shurk - Has the US Government Declared War on Its Citizens?
> Sidney Secular - Vaccination Derangement Syndrome
>Judd Garrett - Commitment to Diversity
>Victor Davis Hanson - Our Elite is No Elite at All
_____________________________
Has the US Government Declared War on Its Citizens?
By: J.B. Shurk
American Thinker
February 5, 2022
Imagine if the U.S. government targeted a foreign nation-state by devaluing its currency, pushing waves of migrants across its borders, undermining the security of its elections, denigrating the unifying elements of its citizens' shared history, stoking the flames of any racial or ethnic discord, and spreading fake news to incite the passions of its people. Wouldn't we call that an effective, albeit immoral, hybrid war strategy for taking down an enemy without ever having to fire a shot? Does that assessment change if the hybrid war is being fought, not against a foreign nation, but rather against the individual American states and their citizens?
A country without borders:
For more than forty years, Americans have begged the federal government to put a stop to illegal immigration. Instead, Congress has done nothing but push various forms of amnesty for those whose first act upon entering this country is to break its immigration laws. Rather than listening to voters and securing our porous borders, lawmakers have chosen to ridicule Americans as xenophobic for daring to believe that it is not healthy for the United States to have tens of millions of foreign nationals creating a parallel nation within our own.
Sex-trafficking, narco-terrorism, identity theft, drained public resources, and cultural clashes have all accompanied a federal government policy that can be described, at best, as intentionally not enforcing existing immigration law, or at worst, as willfully countermanding enforceable law by aiding and abetting border crossers with promises of social welfare upon arrival and publicly-funded relocation services across the continent. More and more Democrat-controlled jurisdictions are going so far as to demand that illegal aliens be given the right to vote in elections, effectively nullifying American citizens' votes with those of citizens of foreign nations.
If twenty-five million Americans (a sensible estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. today) crossed into Canada, they would instantly become Canada's largest voting bloc. It is doubtful, however, that either Canadians or global observers would find it fair or just for those Americans to take over power in Parliament. Yet the American government sees no such problem replacing its voters with those from other countries.
Elections without trust:
We have hundred-million-dollar lotteries in America that sell tickets at every hole-in-the-wall gas station from the middle of the Nevada desert to the remote Maine wilderness, and when winning jackpot numbers come up, winning ticket-holders are identified almost immediately. Yet a national political election arrives, and it takes days, if not weeks, for the nation to discover the winner. Only third-world banana republics and the United States of America conduct elections with so few identification requirements for voters and so few security protocols for safeguarding ballots.
The logical result is that only 20% of Americans are "very confident" that election outcomes are legitimate. A reasonable person might expect national politicians to comprehend the widely held belief that vote fraud is prevalent as a debilitating vulnerability for both American national security and domestic political stability. Government officials, however, are more offended by Americans questioning election outcomes than they are by the elimination of secret ballots, the transformation of voting day into voting season, the imposition of mass mail-in balloting by judicial fiat, the construction of parking lot drop boxes for anonymous and unsecured ballot-stuffing, late-night ballot dumps, private contractors hired by tech companies to manipulate elections, or truckloads of votes simply disappearing.
Democrats see all these election abominations, ignore their myriad openings for vote fraud, and insist on reframing them as "voting rights." Normal people look at them in horror and shout, "We have corrupt elections in America!" The January 6 Commission hears these people; learns nothing; and cries out, "Domestic terrorists!"
A nation without history:
Nations of people without any sense of shared history or purpose do not remain nations for long. Tearing down statues destroys the collective memory of the past. Reimagining America's founding as some evil paradise for slaveholders, instead of the triumph for human liberty that it was, cheapens all the struggles Americans have endured together for freedom. Fixating on skin color serves no purpose other than to salt the land with hatred and division. Choosing to vilify local law enforcement as "white supremacists" while celebrating citywide arson and mayhem in the name of "racial justice" only assures that "justice for all"disappears for good. Why is the secretary of education committed to pushing Critical Race Theory on public school students while accusing concerned parents of being "domestic terrorists"? Why do the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation push "white supremacy" as the most lethal domestic terrorism threat a half-century after Jim Crow? Why does the White House routinely demonize its Republican opponents as being malicious racists not at all different from George Wallace or Bull Connor (both Democrats)?
Disparaging local policing as institutionalized racism has had the predictable effect of increasing crime across the country. Falsely accusing white Americans of being irredeemably racist has had the predictable effect of dividing the country along racial lines. Rewriting Americans' history so that the country's steady pursuit of human freedom is intentionally stricken from the record has had the predictable effect of convincing too many Americans that nothing about their nation's past is worth preserving. Why would a rational government seek to divide Americans by race unless its mission is to destroy national unity for good?
An economy without a middle class:
Relentless central bank money-printing, exploding federal government debt, and the intentional abandonment of American blue-collar manufacturing jobs in exchange for "free trade" promises of cheaper imports and greater Wall Street profits have done more to hurt ordinary Americans than any foreign threat.
Thousands of impoverished and blighted towns across the country serve as painful testaments to those policies. While the wealthiest 1% of Americans have never been richer, the middle class has descended into poverty. What kind of government intentionally depreciates the value of the dollars paid for the workingman's labor, cripples his children's future with unserviceable debt, and then sends his job overseas so that the things he can no longer afford are built by people he no longer knows? What kind of government sacrifices the abundant natural resources of its lands so that it is dependent on oil, steel, minerals, and rare earth metals from foreign adversaries and enemies? What kind of government sacrifices a labor force spread across the continent so that a small number of tech and finance employees in a handful of coastal cities can prosper at everyone else's expense? It is as if the U.S. government set out to make a broad swath of the American people as dependent on government welfare as the government is dependent on critical resources coming from foreign dictators. How could that possibly be a formula for American safety, security, and survival?
If we were being honest with ourselves, surely we would ask whether the government of the United States has quietly declared war on the people of the United States. Or is that question no longer permitted in this new era of government-sanctioned censorship?
______________________________
Vaccination Derangement Syndrome
By: Sidney Secular
American Freedom News
February 3, 2022
Today we have acronyms for everything; this is probably a throwback to America’s military history as such means of ID (identification) are favored among soldiers. In this article, I provide a definition of a “disease” afflicting large portions of the populations of both America and the rest of the world that is making everybody more than a little daffy – and dangerous for those unafflicted.
VDS is an easily recognizable condition that is an unfortunate admixture of psychology, sociology, and physical conditions in which the afflicted blindly follow government edicts however lacking in sense and wisdom these edicts may be. These “instructions” frequently violate both the rights and health requirements of the individual as well as being contrary to the good that the individual is told these “instructions” provide. Many Americans have come to believe that any medical directive issued by “an authority” whether in the health field or of some health-related government entity, is absolute!
One very important aspect of this syndrome is the unfailing belief that such directives are based on real “science” even when those who question them are themselves physicians and scientists. Indeed, the term “science” has been politicized to the point at which conclusions are determined first and then the “research” is manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion – if research is conducted at all. Meanwhile, those afflicted with VDS submit themselves and even their children – born and unborn – to spurious – and experimental – “cures,” thus becoming experimental tests subjects without even knowing that that is what they are.
This use of hapless human guinea pigs is forbidden by the Nuremberg Code passed after the trial of Nazi doctors who used unwilling prisoners in their medical experiments. The ten points of the code given in the section of the judges’ verdict were entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments:”
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
ü The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary.
ü The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
ü The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
ü No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
ü The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
ü Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
ü The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
ü During the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
ü During the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
It is interesting to note that today in Germany, efforts are being made to nullify this code as it directly reflects the ongoing situation of those who take these “vaccines” without understanding that, like the victims of the Nazis, they, too are participating in medical experimentation!
Many of those afflicted with VDS, unfortunately, have attained prestigious positions of influence in government, the religious sector, sports and entertainment, academics, gurus of technology, and military leadership circles. Alas, there do not appear to be large numbers of politicians and bureaucrats willing to donate their lives to “science” but that is probably because they know very well the risk involved.
However, as far as politics is concerned, it would certainly appear that Democrat voters are particularly beset with VBS – at least with regards to their opinion of those of us who are not and therefore reject “the jab!” A recent Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Report national poll of January 13, 2022 shows that among Democrats, 55% support fining Americans who refuse the jab, 59% support house arrest of the unvaccinated, 48% support imprisoning those who question vaccine efficacy on social media, 45% support internment camps for the unvaccinated, 47% support government surveillance of the unvaccinated, and 29% support the State removing children from unvaccinated parents especially if those children have not been vaccinated. VDS affliction has reached critical condition among our Social Justice warriors just as the percentage of the clinically sane in that group is falling precipitously!
From these statistics, it is obvious that these deadly “vaccines” are even more dangerous than knowledgeable people first thought! For whether one willingly embraces spurious “gene therapy”and nano-technology designed to create AI “transhumans” or depopulate the world, a la the call of Bill Gates and his ilk, or, in the alternative, one stands up for individual liberty and refuses to participate in mass murder, it would appear that the results don’t favor those of us who do not have VDS.
______________________________
Commitment to Diversity
By: Judd Garrett
Objectivity is the Objective
February 6, 2022
On the last play of the wildcard game in this year’s NFL playoffs between the Dallas Cowboys and the San Francisco 49ers, Dallas quarterback Dak Prescott ran a draw play up the middle in an attempt to move the Cowboys into touchdown scoring range. After the play ended, the team lined up to kill the clock so they can run one more play and possibly score the game winning touchdown. The Cowboys never got that chance because the clock expired one second before Prescott spiked the ball, and the Cowboys were upset by the 49ers. One second was the difference between defeat, and a chance at the game-winning touchdown. One second, 1 yard, 1 inch, are the narrow margins that decide most NFL games. That is how competitive it is. That is how hard it is to win a game in the NFL. All four of the divisional round playoff games this year ended with a walk off victory on the final play of the game. Both Conference championship games were decided by a field goal in the last 2 minutes or in overtime. That is how narrow the margin of victory is in the NFL.
Tom Brady, arguably the greatest player ever to play in the NFL, retired this past week. In his retirement announcement on Twitter, he stated that "I have always believed the sport of football is an 'all-in' proposition -- if a 100% competitive commitment isn't there, you won't succeed, and success is what I love so much about our game… I have tried my very best these past 22 years. There are no shortcuts to success on the field or in life.”
After the Cowboys lost to the 49ers, the big question was, will Cowboys head coach Mike McCarthy be fired? Simply by asking that question and placing the blame of that loss on the head coach, we are acknowledging that the role of the head coach is vitally important to the success or failure of the team. The head coach is not merely a figurehead, who has very little influence on the outcome of the games. Therefore, getting the best person in place based on merits and qualification is paramount. There’s a reason why head coaches get paid upwards to $12 million per year, and teams have been willing to trade first round draft picks to get the head coach they want.
This past week, former Miami Dolphins Head Coach Brian Flores has created a stir throughout the NFL by filing a lawsuit against the Miami Dolphins, Denver Broncos, New York Giants, and the NFL, for alleged racist hiring practices. As evidence, he has pointed out that of the 32 NFL teams, right now, there is only one black head coach, and that coaching staffs and front offices throughout the league do not have enough “diversity”. NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell responded by saying, “We have made significant efforts to promote diversity and adopted numerous policies and programs which have produced positive change in many areas, however we must acknowledge that particularly with respect to head coaches the results have been unacceptable.”
Washington Commanders General Manager Jason Wright said, “I, in turn, have built the most diverse leadership team in the NFL. Where there's a will, there's a way. This is a low point [for the NFL]. It can very quickly get to a high point if a few folks are committed." He is absolutely right. If you want diversity, commit to diversity, and you’ll get diversity. But you won’t necessarily get success. It is interesting that Jason Wright didn’t say they have the best, most talented, smartest, most innovative leadership team in the NFL. He said they have the “most diverse leadership team in the NFL”. He wanted to have the most diverse, so he got the most diverse. The problem is many other owners and general managers want to have the best, the most talented, and the smartest leadership team in the NFL. And what wins on Sunday in the NFL is not diversity, but talent, intelligence, and innovation. So, as he is chasing diversity, many of his competitors are chasing victory.
Compare this type of “commitment to diversity” to Tom Brady’s belief that professional football is “an all-in proposition,” and a “100% competitive commitment”. If that isn’t there, you won’t succeed. That is coming from a man who has experience more success in the NFL than anyone. Arguably, the greatest player of all time.
Teams who don’t put winning first, usually lose. Some NFL teams put making money ahead of winning. And those teams usually make a pile of money, but they generally don’t win Super Bowls. If you put making money first, you’re putting winning second. You can’t worship two Gods. In a hyper-competitive environment like professional football where the majority of the games are won by one touchdown or less, if winning is not your number one priority, you’re setting yourself up to lose. So, if diversity is what you’re committed to, then winning becomes your second priority, and you’re setting yourself up to lose. This is not to say that you cannot be diverse, and also win a Super Bowl. There are numerous examples of minority head coaches and minority general managers who have won the Super Bowl. But they got their jobs based on merit, based on them being the best candidate for the job, not because of “diversity”.
The late great owner of the Raiders, Al Davis’ motto for his team was “commitment to excellence”. In 1979, Davis hired the first Hispanic head coach in NFL history, Tom Flores, and in 1989, hired first Black head coach in NFL history, Art Shell. Davis whose other famous motto was “just win baby”, didn’t hire these men out of a “commitment to diversity”, but out of his “commitment to excellence”. He believed that they were the best men for the job, and they were hired accordingly. Flores led the Raiders to 2 Super Bowl Championships, while Shell went on to lead the Raiders to 5 winning seasons in 7 years and was named AP Coach of the Year in 1990.
So, people or teams that are committed to diversity, are admitting that they do not have that “100% commitment” to success that Tom Brady talked about. And to be fair, if there are owners, who refuse to consider a minority candidate for a head coaching job or general manager position, they also do not have that 100% commitment to winning. Anytime, you place the color of person’s skin or their ethnicity over their qualifications and abilities when deciding to hire them in a hyper-competitive environment then you are putting yourself and your team at a competitive disadvantage.
It is not enough just to hire a qualified candidate of a preferred race; you must aim to hire the most qualified candidate regardless of race. The racist owner who hires the most qualified white guy, even if there are more qualified minority coaches available, and the “diversity-minded” owner who hires the most qualified minority coach, even if there are more qualified white coaches available, are both wrong. So, the racist owner and the diversity-minded owner are doing the exact same thing, they are placing the color of the person’s skin above their commitment to winning.
The NFL, and every major professional sport, is a meritocracy. The best player should play regardless of their skin color, their ethnicity, or their lifestyle. Carl Nassib, of the Raiders, came out as homosexual before the start of this past season, and he had a big impact on the success of the Raiders this year. He was not denied a chance to play because of his lifestyle off the field. If he can help the team win, then he should be in the lineup. And the hiring of coaches, and general managers should be based solely on the same thing, their ability, their knowledge, their qualifications which are vital to winning.
Everyone around the league acknowledges that a push to diversity in hiring reduces a team’s chances of getting the best people in place in order to win, because there is no push for more diversity on the playing field. Who makes the team and who doesn’t, who plays and who doesn’t is determined strictly by merit. Teams do not factor in the players race when determining if they’re going to keep them on the roster or play them in the game. Teams don’t assess the racial make-up of the roster when making final cuts. And if they do, they would be compromising their team’s chances of winning. Therefore, why would you do that for positions like general manager and head coach who can have a much greater impact on winning and losing then, the 53rd man on the roster, or a back-up running under a kick on special teams.
What if rookie kicker Evan McPherson who kicked the game winning 31-yard field goal for the Bengals over the Chiefs which propelled them to the Super Bowl, who had made three other field goals in that game, and also kicked the game winning 52-yard field goal with 4 seconds left the week before had been bypassed by Cincinnati in favor of a “diversity hire” because the NFL does not have enough minority place kickers? Even if the “diversity” kicker was a qualified kicker, but not as qualified as McPherson, the Bengals may be sitting at home. Those are the margins of victory and defeat in the NFL. If a team said they will not have a black quarterback, then they’re going to miss out on the chance of having Super Bowl winning quarterbacks Patrick Mahomes or Russell Wilson, but they would be just as wrong if they said they were not going to have any white wide receivers, because they would miss out on Cooper Kupp, or Wes Welker who have helped lead their teams to multiple Super Bowls.
You can argue that these diversity hirings are a make-up or retribution for the racist hirings of the past, but how does that help your players this year? How does it make your players perform better and to their optimum ability, if you knowingly hired a lesser candidate because of skin color? Would you tell them, ‘We hired this lesser coach to make up for racism in the past, so be happy with the 6-11 season.’ And everybody who believes that it is okay to hire a black coach because of his skin color, are in essence giving their stamp of approval for all those times when white coaches were hired because of their skin color. When you engage in racism, all you’re doing is giving your stamp of approval on everyone else’s racism.
At some point in the future maybe 20 to 30 years from now, when the fog of emotion about our present-day situation has lifted, we are going to be judged precisely on the words we said, and the positions we took, and the historical context of those positions which are real to us today will be removed, so our positions and our beliefs must transcend the time in which we live and be universal across all time. And the most universal and transcendent position about race, is to judge people and hire people based solely on their merit and on their character, and absolutely never take into consideration their race when deciding whether you should or should not hire that person.
______________________________
Our Elite is
No Elite at All
The only real recent public service
of elites has been to persuade us
why they were never elites at all.
By: Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness
February 6, 2022
An elite is always variously defined.
The ideal elites, as ancient philosophers argued, were a “natural elite” due to their exemplary character, aptitude, and work ethic. Understandably, a towering few ascended from all walks of life to positions of power, influence, and occasional wealth.
But such a natural meritocracy, for obvious reasons, rarely leads to an equality of result.
Who Are Our Elite?
Our current idea of ostensible elites could be defined by noting their money and influence. But money alone—even in the huge sums now found on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley—is not the only elite criterion.
Donald Trump is a billionaire with much influence and lives accordingly. Yet few of our “elite” would consider him a kindred soul. Ditto Elon Musk. He is the richest man in the world. But the elite mostly despise and ostracize him.
Birth itself has given way somewhat to insider influence and professional parentage. You may be a fifth-generation scion with a name such as Mellon, Vanderbilt, or Rockefeller, but if your dad was not an ambassador, your mom not a VP at CBS, your sibling not a Harvard professor or Google executive, you have fallen out of the elite.
Zipcodes still count. Although there are certainly “elites” who hail from Kansas City, Boise or Sacramento, most of those who exercise national clout are found inordinately on the two coasts, from Boston to Washington, D.C., and from Seattle to San Diego—with respective windows on the wealth of Europe or Asia.
The Obamas were going to be anointed as multimillionaires wherever they lived. But they would not necessarily remain as elite as they have become living back in Chicago rather than in a tony D.C. neighborhood and out on Martha’s Vineyard. So, it was an easy call for them to follow the trajectory of the Clintons rather than the Georgia-bound Carters.
In the 21st century, other elite criteria seem to count as much as the old markers of lineage, money, and location. “Certification,” defined as degrees from the “right” undergraduate and graduate schools, is essential for an elite resumé.
Such brands have little to do with education per se or aggregate knowledge acquired. (It is not clear that an Ivy League student would do better on the same SAT, taken upon graduation as earlier, upon admittance). Are our best generals those with Yale degrees, and our best CEOs those with Stanford MBAs? And are Harvard Law Review editors—think Barack Obama, the boss of Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, James Comey, and John Brennan—our top legal and ethical minds?
The point of certification is that it is the cattle brand to open networking doorways and empower even banal arguments from authority. A Harvard MBA or a Princeton BA is not difficult to obtain. But getting into such places in the first place to obtain such a certification most certainly was hard. And whether it was in the past a matter of being white, rich, and well connected, or in the present being non-white, female, and well-connected, the key is joining an elite club—not justifying one’s membership in it by current and future demonstrable excellence.
Another route to being an elite is found in some sort of political, media, academic, sports, or entertainment celebrity—the Robert De Niros or LeBron Jameses of the world. We are not sure how all these celebrated people became elites, only that some exercise influence and win adherents through their ubiquity—and notoriety. A Don Lemon or Jeffrey Epstein is not an elite by proven achievement or innate talent, much less character. But they sort of became mysteriously famous for being famous (or infamous).
The Kardashians are elites. But they reached this status by merchandising and popularizing larger than normal posteriors—and to be frank, more shamelessly than others—posting selfies of their ample boobs and butts. Ditto an earlier Madonna or Britney Spears, both of whom could somewhat sing in addition to doing burlesque.
Finally, left-wing politics are essential for the new elite. The brilliant Tom Sowell or Shelby Steele is not an elite; the racialist Ibram Kendi or madwoman Joy Reid is.
The CNN masturbatory legal-eagle Jeffrey Toobin is considered an elite expert of jurisprudence, despite having never won a landmark case or being renowned for his courtroom presence or seminal legal scholarship. In contrast, proven expert constitutionalists, such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, are not so well regarded as authorities on the law by the elite.
Does Harvard Law have a mini-course on ethics, advising graduates not to expose their phalloi to female colleagues? That is the sort of Toobin illness that would earn a poor deplorable time in the clink or a lifetime on the sex-offender register,
So woke progressivism does not just cement elite membership. It also serves as an acceptable scab to mask a lack of character beneath, especially in the case of scoundrels like one-time would-be presidential contender Michael Avenatti, or the once blackfaced like Justin Trudeau and former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam. It covers the bloody work of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as long-ago discredited fabulists like Dan Rather and Brian Williams, or plagiarists like the famous Doris Kearns Goodwin, the late Steven Ambrose, and even Joe Biden.
The Elite Res Gestae
What counts more, however, is not so much who becomes an oligarchical elite, but what exactly has this newer sort of elite class done for our society at large?
Collectively, this generation’s record of leadership, such as it is, has been mostly dismal: no Hoover Dam, no subsequent moon-landing or trip to Mars, no Normandy Beach or Inchon, no polio vaccine, no Casablanca, The Best Years of our Lives, or Shane movies, and no novels like For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Grapes of Wrath, Tender is the Night, Absalom, Absalom! or Invisible Man—but plenty of California-like Solyndras and Stonehenge high-speed rails, skedaddles from Kabul and Benghazi, gifting of $80 billion in arms to the Taliban, double-vaxxed and boosted, sorta, kinda short-term immunity, “X-Men” and “Avenger” comic-book films, and How to Be an Anti-Racist best sellers.
The more we gained Silicon Valley billionaires, the more we moved into the world of 1984, merely substituting J. Edgar Hoover’s G-men for woke, suit-and-tied James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Kevin Clinesmith—or legions of nerds with cancel buttons sitting in rows of computer carrels in Menlo Park.
Movers and shakers who operate Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, or GoFundMe are much more devoted to Soviet-style censorship than to the First Amendment. They worry far more over profits rather than over the Uyghurs. And their creed is more McCarthyism than the Sermon on the Mount.
Our four-star elite officers have more degrees than ever, more contact with the Hill and the White House—and had no more idea, than the clueless bureaucrats who dispatched them, how to discover what was the purpose in Libya or the agenda in Afghanistan.
General Mark Milley was more interested in virtue signaling his furor at white rage than in keeping safe a $1 billion embassy in Kabul, $300 million worth of refits at the Bagram airbase, and $80 billion in arms. He was not so worried over how to win wars or keep the peace. As an elite, he knew he could ignore all that and still not be fired—if he at least virtue signaled his crusade against white rage.
In the current generation of our loud, woke military, we will likely see Afghanistan return as a pre-9/11 terrorist headquarters, Iran go nuclear, North Korea step up its missile launches, and Taiwan and Ukraine at best squeezed into Finlandization, and at worst absorbed.
The more the public listened to the architects of lockdowns, mandates, and quarantines—the elite at the CDC, NIH, and NIAID, the political hypocrites like California Governor Gavin Newsom, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and sham-modelers such as Neil Ferguson of the Imperial College, London—the more people died in classical “the medicine is worse than the malady” fashion.
There are no finer degreed-elites in the world than our medical professionals such as Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Peter Daszak. The three became international rock stars as they crafted a coverup by denying links between the pandemic and the Wuhan virology lab, and their efforts either to fund or hide gain-of-function viral research.
We don’t quite know how we got into $30 trillion of debt, normative $2 trillion deficits, growing stagflation, and adherence to an unhinged modern monetary theory that assures us printing money ensures prosperity. We only know that the 7-Eleven manager, the owner-operator truck driver, and the electrician grasp a lot more about economics than do the Ph.D.s who wrote, argued, and led us into this mess.
The Elite Pantheon
Finally, examine the marquee elites of the past few years. Do we remember the late Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophiliac blackmailer who posed as a legitimate money manager? Do we remember the Lolita express paparazzi who jetted to his various hot spots, whether President Emeritus Bill Clinton or the royal Prince Andrew or allegedly even the global climate change scold Bill Gates? Why did the richest men in the world and so many from Harvard University court him? In contrast, most of the working class knows enough to steer clear of pedophiles.
We are suffering a plague of cop shootings. Yet in a few days, our multimillionaire Super Bowl entertainers will share one thing in common: They all have advocated or glorified violence against the police.
At one time or another, we were told the following elites were geniuses or cutting-edge—men and women in the know and to be known: Woody Allen, Alec Baldwin, the two Cuomos, the always shouting, always furious, always pampered, but otherwise inane and empty Greta Thunberg.
Our corporate elites gave millions in their stockholders’ money as penance to BLM, without a worry where, how, or why those millions were spent—or siphoned off in real estate investments by the grifter leadership.
Nikole Hannah-Jones is now our nation’s elite chronological expert whose rare insight on race, history, and war taught the nation that 1619, not 1776, was our true foundational date. But so far, she has failed to convince anyone of her latest notion that 1865 was the first year of the Civil War.
Ditto, Whoopi Goldberg. She claims rare insight on the catalysts of the Holocaust, apparently better than its architect Adolf Hitler, who, we are told by her, really did not exterminate 6 million Jews because of his racial hatred of Jews. Instead, Professor Goldberg, of Ghost fame, lectures us that what went on at Treblinka was a sort of tit-for-tat catfight between white people. Had Goldberg said Hitler took chloroquine rather than killed 6 million for non-racial reasons, she would likely have been censored or kicked off social media.
Elites hate the truckers. We know that from their outrage over the Canadian trucker strike—and Justin Trudeau’s infantile meltdown. They care little for the working moms who lost their jobs when schools closed, and who had to quit work to watch their children. They have no concern for the small businesses that went broke, as the Zoom class made more money than ever during COVID-19. The more we elected credentialed district attorneys, the more crime shot up, the innocent suffered, and the elite shrugged.
The elite gave us the Russian collusion hoax, the beatification of the prevaricator Adam Schiff, the iconization of the disingenuous conniver Alexander Vindman, the neat idea of modern monetary theory, the bold idea of open borders, the beloved idea of critical race theory, and a spiking violent crime wave explained away by critical legal theory.
The only real recent public service of elites has been to persuade us why they were never elites at all.
_______________
No comments:
Post a Comment