Canadian Judges to be Trained to Ignore Black Rapists - now it's their racial right to rape White women!

 From here:

SYSTEMIC RACISM TRAINING SOUGHT FOR JUDGES

LIBERAL AND NDP MPS NOW SUPPORT CONSERVATIVE BILL

MPs amend judge sex-assault training bill to add systemic racism training, sparking new concerns

Critics worry this represents politicians trying to inject their policy preferences into judicial training, and once the door is opened, future governments will pile on

By Brian Platt Oct 28, 2020:

Liberal MP Greg Fergus, chair of "the parliamentary Black caucus."

OTTAWA — A bill that requires sexual assault training for federally appointed judges has been amended by MPs to also include training on “systemic racism and systemic discrimination” — a change some see as a troubling sign politicians will keep venturing further into judicial training.

The legislation, which has now gone through three versions in four years, has seen widespread debate in the legal community over its constitutionality. Judges are self-governed through independent bodies to insulate them from political pressure, and already have their own training programs, including on sexual assault.

Supporters of the bill argue this is simply Parliament signalling that more must be done to protect the rights of sexual assault complainants and avoid basic legal errors. They note that judicial organizations are still responsible for creating the actual training content.

BULLSHIT! WHO WILL THIS REALLY PROTECT? BLACK RAPISTS! HOW AND WHY? WELL, IN AMERICA, WHERE THEY'RE NOT SCARED OF KEEPING RACIAL CRIME STATS, WE LEARN THAT THERE'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BLACK-ON-WHITE RAPES EVERY YEAR, BUT EXACTLY ZERO WHITE-ON-BLACK CASES OF RAPE - NOT EVEN IN THE MOST DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED STATES, NOR IN THE MOST BLACKEST OF CITIES, WHERE THE MAYORS, CHIEFS OF POLICE AND COPS ARE ALL BLACKS! SO WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR A JUDGE TO BE "TRAINED" ABOUT BLACKS IN RAPE CASES? IT MEANS THEY WILL BE TOLD IT'S NEVER A BLACK RAPISTS' FAULT, THAT IT'S ALWAYS THEIR WHITE VICTIM'S FAULT, AND THAT THE BLACK RAPIST HAS A HOLY RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHT TO RAPE WHITE WOMEN (AND MEN AND BOYS) AS REPARATIONS FOR THE SLAVERY WE NEVER HAD UP HERE IN CANADA!

But critics worry the bill represents politicians trying to inject their policy preferences into judicial training, and that once the door is opened through this sex-assault training bill, future governments will pile on with their own political priorities, such as national security.

As it turns out, MPs have not even waited for the bill to get through the House of Commons before adding to it.

Liberal MP Greg Fergus told the Commons justice committee on Tuesday that his amendments are in order because the bill already required the training to consider the “social context” around sexual assault. The new language specifies that social context includes “systemic racism and systemic discrimination.” It does not include any other topics, and does not define those terms.

“I found that this offered us a good opportunity to…include other groups into the purpose of the bill,” said Fergus, who chairs the parliamentary Black caucus. “Those are the reasons why I proposed some small modifications,” he said, speaking in French.

The amendments were carried with Liberal, Conservative and NDP support, though they still need to pass in the full House of Commons and the Senate. Only Bloc Québécois MP Rhéal Fortin voted against them, saying they stray too far off track.

“It’s like we’d gone off to buy potatoes at the store, and we returned home with strawberries,” Fortin said in French. “I’m sorry, but that doesn’t work…If we want to work on a different bill than the original one, which was for training on sexual assault, and we want something different on systemic discrimination, that’s fine and well, that can be something we could do. But we’ll have to make another bill completely or reopen the witness list.”

Fortin also argued that the term “systemic racism” is a politically popular phrase right now, but it’s not clear to everyone what it means.

Arif Virani, the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, responded that there is wide social consensus around the phrase as it applies to institutions, and it “reflects sort of where we are as a nation, as a continent.”

Liberal MP James Maloney said that Fortin’s concerns about judicial independence could also be applied to the original bill, which Fortin supports. “We’ve crossed that threshold, Mr. Fortin,” Maloney said.

The legislation amends the Judge’s Act to require judges “undertake to participate in continuing education” on sexual assault and social context, and requires that the Canadian Judicial Council develop the training “with persons, groups or organizations the Council considers appropriate, such as sexual assault survivors and groups and organizations that support them.” It requires the Council to report to Parliament on when the seminars were given and how many judges attended.

The first version was introduced by former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose in 2017, but it stalled in the Senate in 2019 over concerns of judicial independence. It was largely rewritten in the Senate, mainly by Sen. Pierre Dalphond, a former Quebec judge, who scaled back some of the more intrusive parts of the bill.

However, procedural wrangling kept the bill from advancing and it died on the 2019 election call. Justice Minister David Lametti revived it in February as government legislation, but that bill also died when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in August.

Dalphond told National Post that from what he understands of the amendments, they’re acceptable to him since they only mention systemic racism as one part of the social context, not the whole definition. He also said that in his experience, systemic racism is already an important part of judicial training. But he warned that Parliament must not go too far in attempting to direct the training or influence the content.

“The shorter the better,” Dalphond said about the legislation.

Asked for comment, Ambrose replied with a statement that did not mention the systemic racism amendment. “I know victims of sexual assault are thankful that MPs are working together to get this bill passed,” she said. “I hope it passes without delay.”

Lametti’s office also did not comment directly on the amendment, but said the justice minister “fully agrees with the need to take action to address systemic racism in Canada’s justice system.”

A spokesperson from the Canadian Judicial Council said that “Canada has arguably the best program of judicial education in the world,” and for that reason the Council has always thought the bill is unnecessary.

“That said, the Council is pleased that the (justice committee) appears to have accepted the judiciary’s suggestions on how to improve the bill to ensure it meets its laudable objectives while still preserving judicial independence,” the statement said.

Many in the legal profession are deeply concerned about the precedent the bill sets. Gib van Ert, a lawyer who was executive legal officer at the Supreme Court of Canada from 2015 to 2018, wrote in Maclean’s in February that governments should not be legislating training for judges, because once it starts it might never end.

“Why not put a few more required courses on the judges’ curriculum?” van Ert wrote rhetorically at the time. “Why not train our judges in systemic racism, Indigenous laws and rights, climate change, national security and counterterrorism, border security and unlawful migration?”

His essay turned out to be prescient.

“Of course, judges should learn about sexual assault and systemic racism,” van Ert told the Post on Tuesday. “They already do, through their own judge-led training programs. The problem lies in the training being mandated by politicians. When people go to court they need to feel their judge isn’t just thinking and doing what the government tells them to. 

They need to believe judges are independent. I continue to think this is a bad precedent.”

A Biden presidency will mean a faster collapse in the U.S.

 By Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Media Alerts

The election of 2020 is perhaps the most bizarre affair in modern American history; not since the post-Civil War turmoil of reconstruction and the election of 1876 when the nation was divided completely down ideological lines. Questions of states' rights versus federal power were at the forefront, and the presence of federal troops in the south was a primary voting concern. The Democrats at the time were the party of the South and the Confederacy, the Republicans were the party of the Union. Though they had lost the war, southerners were finding ways to strike back during the elections.

With the Republican Party suffering from corruption allegations and public sentiment shifting against the federal occupation, the Democrats were gaining massive ground and a Democratic sweep was thought to be imminent. However, there were reports of ballot-box fraud on both sides of the aisle; in many voting districts, the counted number of votes exceeded the number of people (often on the side of Republicans). Republicans sought to challenge poll results in closely contested states to stop the Democrats and former confederates from taking political power, a situation they considered to be a "national disaster."

The election became a stalemate of legal battles and fraud investigations. Ultimately a deal was struck — the Republicans would take the White House and in exchange federal troops would be removed from the South (the Republicans knew that voting fraud on their side would be exposed and that another civil war could erupt in response). Ultimately, the votes did not matter in the case of a contested election; what mattered was which outcome was the most convenient for stability at the time and the election result was maneuvered to that end.

(Special Note: If you try to learn about the 1876 election, I recommend searching for articles and books that are more than 5-10 years old. Anything written in the past few years on the subject is rife with spin and disinformation. Just check out this article from Time magazine and try to swim through the propaganda! The part where they attempt to explain why democrats used to be the party of the Confederacy is especially hilarious — basically, the democrats of the past were more like the "racist Republicans" of today. The communist penchant for rewriting history is on full display.)

Today, we have a different dynamic — which outcome will lead to the biggest disaster, and who will take the blame? In contrast to 1876, I believe that in 2020 the elites are seeking to increase the level of instability, not calm the waters. The mainstream media has launched a massive fear campaign hinting at a potential contested election and both sides of the aisle are accusing the other of encouraging ballot fraud. I have no doubt that whichever way the election goes, millions of Americans will refuse to accept the results.

To be clear, I don't really view modern elections from the perspective of "winning" and "losing." It's hard for me to say exactly what was going on behind the curtain in 1876, but today I think it is foolish to engage in election analysis without first accepting the reality that the game is rigged. Biden is a full-blown globalist and is proud of it; Trump is surrounded by globalists and banking elites in his cabinet. Regardless of who loses, the elites win. The only question I am here to ask is, which candidate serves the globalist agenda most effectively right now?

My original prediction for the 2020 election this past summer was that the White House would go to Donald Trump, but under sharply contested conditions. I predicted Trump's win in 2016 based on the premise that the establishment needed a conservative scapegoat for the impending collapse of the U.S. economy as we know it along with the civil unrest and calamity this event would inspire. I stated unequivocally on numerous occasions that Trump would preside over America's rapid decline and that conservative ideals and principles would be blamed by extension.

And behold, in 2020 this is exactly what is happening, with a pandemic and the implosion of the "Everything Bubble" now in full swing and the media placing it all in the lap of conservatives.

Now, whether or not people believe this tripe is another matter. As it stands, the worst-hit states economically are states controlled by leftist politicians that are enforcing draconian lockdown restrictions on the population. States run by conservatives are faring much better overall.

The point is, which outcome serves the establishment narrative? Do the elites need Trump in office longer in order to crash the system completely on his watch? I believe this is the case. Like Clinton, Biden represents one of the worst possible candidates that could have been chosen as an opponent for Trump if the intent is to remove Trump from the Oval Office. His odd mental breaks, embarrassing gaffs, his habit of being creepily over-familiar with women and young girls and his exposure to corruption through foreign ties make him a poor contender.

To be sure, Democrats and leftists will vote for him anyway out of spite, but I have a hard time seeing him rallying a wide cross-section of Americans that would give him an edge. If the establishment wanted to be rid of Trump, they could have chosen better.

But what if I'm wrong and a Biden presidency is forthcoming? What if ballots are rigged to one side, as they were in 1876? What if a contested election leads to an "agreement" in which Trump steps down? What would it mean to have Biden in the White House?

Well, the U.S. system as we know it is going to fall either way, at least in terms of the economy. This is a process that was initiated many years ago, with the impetus of financial bubbles hitting disaster proportions in 2008. Nothing has improved since then; in fact, the central bank bailouts and stimulus measures only increased the likelihood of a collapse event by inflating corporate and national debt levels while simultaneously diminishing the buying power of the dollar. The only difference between Trump and Biden in this regard is how fast the collapse will happen.

With Trump, the crash will most likely happen slower and more methodically as the establishment takes its time building the narrative that conservative ideals, nationalism, sovereignty movements, etc. "caused" the calamity because such philosophies are "inherently selfish" and destructive. Meaning, at least with Trump, we have a little more time to prepare for the inevitable.

With Biden in office, the time frame changes completely, and the crash must move faster. Why? Because the globalists cannot allow a Biden administration (and by extension the globalists) to be labeled as the culprits behind the crash. They would have to expedite the downturn in the early months of Biden's first term so that the media can claim the crisis is an aftereffect of Trump's presidency.

If Biden does enter the White House in 2021, expect a hard plunge in economic fundamentals almost immediately.

Another factor of a Biden presidency would be the high probability of federally enforced pandemic lockdowns. Forget about the current state-by-state lockdown orders and nuances; Biden will attempt a national lockdown mandate because he is not held back by a need to appeal to a conservative and liberty-minded constituency like Trump is. Biden will go for broke, and the economy will take another massive hit as businesses go into bankruptcy at breakneck speed. And again, this would have to be implemented quickly so that Trump and conservatives can be blamed. They will claim harsh lockdowns "have to be pursued" because conservatives refused to accept them during the early stages of the pandemic.

Furthermore, it is obvious that a second Trump term would be used as an invitation for mass demonstrations and riots by extreme leftists, but this threat doesn't go away with Biden in office. Actually, the riots may become worse under Biden. The social justice cult will see Biden as a "malleable" and easily controlled political figure who will do their bidding. Biden will placate the hard left; not because he fears them, but because he has a role to play in this great Kabuki theater and it serves the interests of the globalist agenda at the moment.

Finally, if the establishment puts Biden in the White House it means they want national gun restrictions or outright confiscation within the first couple of years of his term. Biden's anti-2nd Amendment views are hardly ambiguous. With Trump, the chances of a gun grab are much slimmer (though he has voiced support for Red Flag laws in the past). Under Biden, the gun grab will be swift. This threat along with Level 4 lockdowns on a national level would elicit the only logical response left for conservatives — armed rebellion.

I do not think this is what the globalists want at this point in time. I do not think they have the capacity to handle it, and I do not think they would be able to get a majority of law enforcement and the military to go along with such policies. This is why I continue to believe they prefer Trump in office and that they will use economic decline and the "failure" of conservative policies as a false rationale for the "global reset" the elites seem to be so excited about.

Be warned, however, that if Biden ends up in office, this should be treated as a warning sign that a high-speed collapse is on the way.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith                                                                                                                                                                   

Do You Really Want Unknown Filth Injected Into Your Body?

 

Do You Really Want Unknown Filth Injecting Into Your Body?

No, this is not a story about vaccination and the contaminants they contain. This is about more every day drugs and unknown filth that often shows up, when there is no effective quality control.

In a nutshell, pharmaceutical companies are always edging and trying to get away with murder (yes, murder). Sometimes they get caught. Most often they do not.

Getting caught isn’t a problem; they just pay the fine and carry on (at least here in the USA). It’s accounting: the fine = minus X but our profit is X³ so—no problem. We make money. What’s missing from the calculations, of course, is the number of dead or damaged patients. WE DON’T CALCULATE THAT, it’s worthless math!

What got me started?

A story by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, in MedPage Today October 15, 2020, about contaminants in injectable Acetazolamide, a diuretic medication used to treat glaucoma, epilepsy, altitude sickness, periodic paralysis, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (raised brain pressure of unclear cause), and heart failure. It may be used long term for the treatment of open angle glaucoma and short term for acute angle closure glaucoma until surgery can be carried out. It is taken by mouth or injection into a vein.

Not in my veins!

Researchers at the University of Kentucky have called on the FDA to recall certain formulations of the injectable acetazolamide, after their own chemical analysis turned up unknown impurities.

The team filed a citizen petition on Sept. 30, citing anomalies in vials within the same lot for products from both a Dutch company, Mylan, and a British multi-national Hikma. Near-infrared spectroscopy revealed extra peaks indicative of contamination—but it wasn’t clear what those contaminants were, as the researchers couldn't find matches in pharmacology libraries.

"In 30 years of near-infrared spectroscopy, I haven't seen too many drugs that look like that," said Philip Almeter, PharmD, chief pharmacist of the University of Kentucky HealthCare, in Lexington. "We thought we should pull it right away and figure out why it was looking so contaminated. We still are not sure what it's contaminated with."¹

Last year, Almeter and colleague Robert Lodder, PhD, of the University of Kentucky  College of Pharmacy, also in Lexington, launched what they called the Drug Quality Study to test pharmaceuticals used in the university's health system before they're given to patients. Injectable acetazolamide was the first product they tested.

When they looked at Mylan's drug using near-infrared spectroscopy, they found 11 of 30 vials from the same lot had significant variations from USP standards, suggesting "a manufacturing procedure that is out of process control," they wrote in the FDA petition.

What’s more, Mylan were cheating! Lab results from a third party, the Albany Molecular Research Inc (AMRI), confirmed via high-performance liquid chromatography that the contaminated vials only contained 80% to 87% of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, versus USP standard calling for 97%.

That’s seriously short-changing to users and could put a patient’s life at risk.

The researchers also tested an injectable acetazolamide product from Hikma, finding anomalies in two of 10 vials in the same lot using near-infrared spectroscopy. Subsequent analysis by AMRI showed the vials contained only 83.5% to 85.6% API, again well below the USP standard.

So Hikma too are cheats.

But what are the impurities? Nobody knows. They could be impurities or breakdown products that naturally formed because it wasn't handled properly, according to Lodder. But whatever the contaminants were, they were not to be found in any known scientific library of substance patterns.

Meantime, the health system has since pulled both the Mylan and Hikma products from its pharmacy shelves. It's using a third product, made by X-Gen, that apparently passed the Almeter and Lodder spectrometry scan.

[Continue To Read Online If You Prefer...]

Where Was The FDA In This?

Predictable. Don’t want to disturb their Big Pharma cronies, of course. They told Almeter and Lodder to file a MedWatch report (so it could be buried and forgotten). Disappointed by the response, Almeter and Lodder filed a citizen petition instead!²

Citizen petitions are part of the basic law governing everything the FDA does - at any time, any “interested person” can request that the FDA “issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or order,” or “take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action.”

In practice, citizen’s petitions are used mainly by pharmaceutical companies themselves, to attack and harass each other, by causing delays.

There's a need for monitoring quality of finished pharmaceutical products given the global manufacturing market and challenges in FDA inspections of those facilities, Almeter said. He means the FDA “inspections” are cursory or non-existent and not really up to a verifiable standard.

But then we all know, FDA is not looking out for patients interests, but for Pharma profits.

The idea for the university's Drug Quality Study came, Almeter explained, after reading Katherine Eban's book Bottle of Lies, which exposed serious manufacturing deficiencies in the generic drug industry.³

No doubt the drug industry would like to see more books like this, destroying the credibility of cheap generics. But also, there is no doubt, that some Indian manufacturers are big cheats; that’s how business is done in India! It’s caveat emptor (buyer beware).

The trouble is, there is little money made on generics, so not much incentive to play the game straight. What does that mean for patients? Best response is don’t take the medicines. You are at risk with all meds. Don’t be fooled” Big Pharma meds are made in exactly the same factories in India and elsewhere!

In fact ninety percent of the prescription drugs consumed in the United States are generics, and the majority of them are produced overseas, mostly in India and China.⁴

Of course the COVID-19 situation is further hindering inspections, and thus concerns about quality are even greater, Almeter said. The stakes are especially high for sterile injectables, which need to be made extremely carefully given that they're often injected directly into the bloodstream.

David Light, CEO of Valisure, entered the conversation and said that "from an overall chemical quality perspective there are certainly additional points of concern with an injectable beyond what we've already seen as problems with oral solids like tablets and capsules."

"By being in liquid form, the drug is effectively in a 'solvent' which can make degradation and other undesirable reactions more likely to happen than when the drug is in a more static, solid form," Light said. "Even getting precise dosage can be more challenging since the manufacturer will have to account for solubility, dissolution rates, evaporation and other liquid-related considerations."

So remember that when you are confronted with injectables. Insulin is one of the most common. But what are you actually getting in your shot? Chemical contaminants and a very different dose to what you are TOLD you are getting.

I’d go for a natural cure, if I were you. All you have to do is eat right, live right and take your supplements. The rest is up to Mother Nature!

Stay well, please!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:
1. https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/productalert/89135
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDA_citizen_petition
3. https://www.amazon.com/Bottles-Lies-Ranbaxy-Indian-Pharma/dp/9353450446/
4. https://www.wired.com/story/8-ways-overseas-drug-manufacturers-dupe-fda/

There is a solution to big tech censorship — but no politician will touch it

 Brandon Smith of the Bob Livingston's Personal Liberty newsletter has expanded on a previous note of mine from a few months ago, with a historical background perspective which legitimates my surmises:

"Concerning big tech censorship of Conservative voices - I have a suggestion for how to quickly and relatively painlessly remedy this vexatious situation: 

Simply unilaterally revise their end-user licensing agreements, (EULAs) as the big tech firms themselves routinely do to their own users!

Since all current CHARTERS OF INCORPORATION are granted with only a few CONDITIONAL CATEGORIES PROHIBITED from them "discriminating" against - mostly some inherent qualities like race, ethnicity, place of origin - and also others which are more suspect and optional like religion and 'gender' - right now neither Trump nor any other besmirched and banned, censored politician or public figure has any authority over "private companies!" 

But that could easily be changed to deny them business licenses if they act contrary to the First Amendment (and, for good measure, throw in all the other Constitutional Amendments so they ALL apply to any and all businesses who want to operate under Federal aegis and jurisdiction, too). That's something that should have been already done long ago.

Also, many corporations are already now routinely discriminating on the basis of race and gender. It's flaunted in their mission statements, such as jobs advertised as "We particularly welcome applications from women and minorities." That is workplace discrimination.

Ditto for government-funded universities and colleges (which, as they do receive public funds, act as agents of the government anyways). 

Right now, duplicitous governments often engage in 'Rights Laundering' because by using private third party firms, the US government is able to circumvent the Rights it must uphold by using a proxy, which I think violates the spirit of the intention of the Constitution on the First Amendment.

So, for example, imagine if the US government explicitly hired third party security contractors, and they beat up some guy. Replace 'third party security contractors' with, say 'the military' or 'the police' - surely if the law applies the second two, it should also apply to the first?

No-one would deny that a third-party firm is acting on the US government's behalf in that capacity. They're paid by the US, directed by the US, and complete objectives for the US, so why are they exempt from law?

Likewise, if the US finances Universities, and the Universities then go on to beat up some guy, or silence him, it's as if the US government themselves had done it. It doesn't matter if the University is 'third-party', the US government knew there was a risk of censorship and/or violence the moment they financed them. Given how often it occurs, it'd be impossible to claim otherwise."

;-)

================================

The issue of censorship by major tech companies is a precarious one, and I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of the nature of the debate. There are some complexities, but it can be boiled down to this:

Big tech social media conglomerates argue that their websites are like any other private business and that they are protected from government interference by the Constitution. In other words, they have a right to platform or deplatform anyone they choose. Of course, they have decided that the people they want to deplatform most are conservatives and anyone else who disagrees with hard left ideologies such as social justice movements or the handling of the pandemic situation. Statements or comments that run contrary to leftist philosophies are simply labeled "hate speech" or "conspiracy theory" and erased.

Conservatives argue that big tech is a monopoly with far too much power, that social media should be treated more like a public resource or "town square" and that these companies are violating the free speech rights of conservatives by specifically targeting them for censorship. Many conservatives are also demanding that Donald Trump and the government step in to regulate or punish such companies for these actions.

The truth is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The real solution to the problem requires a radical change in how we view the institution of corporations and how they interact with government, and it's a solution I doubt any political official will consider, and that includes Trump.

Let me explain...

Social media and big tech do in fact represent a monopoly, but not in traditional terms. Instead of acting as an economic monopoly controlling market share, big tech is really a political monopoly controlling the majority of communication platforms. If only one political and social ideal dominates every major social media and digital information outlet, this in my view represents a completely unbalanced power dynamic that does indeed threaten the free speech rights of the populace.

Rabid censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, a scandal that is supported by facts and evidence that big tech has chosen to bury because it's inconvenient to them rather than a violation of their community guidelines, is just one more example of the incredible danger that social media monopolies present.

That said, there is also the issue of private property rights to consider. Government itself is an untrustworthy entity that craves a monopoly of power, and by handing government the authority to micromanage the policies and internal practices of web companies we might be trading the big tech monster for an even more dangerous governmental monster.

Who is to say that the government will stop with sites like Facebook or Twitter or Google? Maybe they will exploit their newfound powers to go after smaller websites as well. Maybe they will attempt to micromanage the entire internet. Maybe they will start dominating and restricting conservative websites instead of the leftist conglomerates we intended, and then we will be doubly screwed.

If you value freedom and the Bill of Rights, then this debate leaves us at an impasse. Both sides (perhaps conveniently) lead to a totalitarian outcome. The thing is, the publicly presented argument is a contrived one, a manipulated discussion that only presents two sides when there are more options to consider. The narrative is fixed, it is a farce.

The public has been led to believe that government and corporations are separate tools that can be used to keep each side in check. This is a lie. Big government and big corporations have always worked together while pretending to be disconnected, and this needs to stop if we are to ever defuse the political time bomb we now face.

To solve the social media censorship debacle, we need to examine the very roots of corporations as entities. First, corporations, as we know them today, are a relatively new phenomenon. Adam Smith described the concept of a corporation as a "joint stock company" in his treatise The Wealth Of Nations, and stood against them as a threat to free-market economics. He specifically outlined their history of monopoly and failure and criticized their habit of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and crimes.

Joint stock companies were chartered by governments and given special protections from risk, as well as protection from civil litigation (lawsuits). But they were supposed to be temporary business entities, not perpetual business entities. The point was to allow for the creation of a joint stock company to finish a particular job, such as building a railroad, and once the job was finished, the company was dissolved and the government protections were no longer needed. Smith knew that if corporations were ever allowed to become permanent fixtures in an economy, they would result in disaster.

This is exactly what happened in 1886 when the Supreme Court allowed companies like Southern Pacific Railroad to use the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to protect the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, as a loophole to declare corporations as "legal persons" with all the protections of real persons. Not only that, but with limited liability, corporations actually became super-citizens with protections far beyond normal individuals. Corporations became the preeminent force in the world, and it was their relationship with governments that made this possible.

This fact completely debunks today's notion of what constitutes free markets. Corporations are not free market structures. They are, in fact, government chartered and government protected monopolies. They are socialist creations, not free market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society.

The alternative option was for businesses to form "partnerships," which did not enjoy protection from government, limited liability or the ability to form monopolies. When the owners of a partnership committed a crime, they could be personally held liable for that crime. When a corporation commits a crime, only the company as a vaporous faceless entity can be punished. This is why it is very rare to see company CEOs face prosecution, no matter how egregious and catastrophic their actions.

Today, certain corporations continue to enjoy government protections while also enjoying government welfare. Meaning, these companies get a legal shield while also getting the advantage of tax incentives and taxpayer dollars.

For example, Google (Alphabet and YouTube) has long received huge tax breaks as well as rarely if ever being forced to pay for the massive bandwidth the company uses. In fact, YouTube was facing bandwidth affordability issues, but when it was purchased by Alphabet and Google it no longer had to worry about — Google gets over 21 times more bandwidth than it actually pays for.

The same rules apply to companies like Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, etc. All of them enjoy extensive tax breaks as well as cheap bandwidth that makes it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to compete, even if they operate on a superior model or have superior ideas. Many times the corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while smaller businesses are crippled by overt payments.

A true free market requires competition as a rule, but the current system deliberately crushes competition. Again, we live in a socialist framework, not a free market framework.

Now that we understand the nature of big tech and what these companies actually are (creations of government), the debate on social media censorship changes. How? Take for example the fact that public universities in the U.S. are not allowed to interfere with free speech rights because many of them survive by consuming taxpayer dollars. They are public institutions, not private. Why then are we treating major corporations that survive on endless taxpayer infusions and incentives as if they are private? They are not — they are public structures and therefore should be subject to the same rules on free speech that universities are required to follow.

Of course, these corporations will surely argue against this and will attempt to use legal chicanery to maintain their monopolies. Trying to dismantle them could take many years, and there are no guarantees that government officials will even make the attempt? Why would they? The relationship between government and corporations has been an advantageous one for establishment elites for decades.

Instead of challenging the corporate model in the Supreme Court, an easier option would be to simply take away all the tax incentives for any big tech companies that refuse to allow free speech on their platforms. If Google had to pay normal price for the bandwidth it uses, the corporation would either implode, or it would be forced to break apart into multiple smaller companies that would then compete with each other. More competition means lower prices for consumers. The threat of losing tax incentives would mean more large companies would refrain from censorship.

Donald Trump as president could conceivable make this happen, but he will not, and neither will any other political officials. The partnership between government and corporations will continue, I believe, because there are other agendas at play here. The establishment wants the public to argue in favor of tech totalitarianism on one side and in favor of government totalitarianism on the other side. They aren't going to allow any other solutions to enter the discussion.

To confront the power dynamic between governments and major conglomerates is to confront one of the fundamental causes of corruption within our society, which is why it won't be allowed.

To truth and knowledge,

Brandon Smith

On the recent beheading of a teacher in France by The Usual Suspect ("French Man")

This is about the recent beheading of Samuel Paty (teacher) in Paris France by a Moslem parent. Then this FB moslem man wrote a post - and I thought you’d like to read it. Here goes (begin Facebook post):

On the French Terrorist Attack "A teacher has been killed in France by a lone Muslim after displaying provocative cartoons in his classroom. Every time such an incident happens, the same groups respond in the same manners. Almost all people have an instantaneous emotional reaction, and very few are able to take a step back and look at multiple facets in this complex narrative. For Macron and the anti-Muslim Far Right establishment, this isolated attack fits perfectly into their broader narrative of the incompatibility of Islam in their society. Hence, Macron jumps on this murder and politicizes it immediately, fully aware that he is going to rise in the polls as a result. For disenfranchised Muslims, some of whom are sympathetic to the attack itself, quoting snippets of fiqh works and hadiths out of context is sufficient to legitimize this act. These individuals have neither studied uṣūl al-fiqh (which would preclude vigilante justice in all circumstances) nor give any weight to the concept of maṣāliḥ and mafāsid (as there is no question that the harms to come out of such attacks to the entire Ummah far outweigh the harms of the initial, localized provocation - what would have potentially emotionally hurt a few people in a classroom is now going to backlash on an entire nation's community and policies). For the conspiracy theorists, any and all such incidents are plots of the CIA, Mossad, or other shadowy nefarious entities that somehow control every leaf that falls. For these people, no Muslim is ever to blame and no extremism actually exists. To compound this narrative, there are undoubtedly some confirmed incidents of government provocation, hence one is genuinely confused as to what to say or not to say; but no person can deny that there is a real trend of extremist thought within our ranks, no matter how small it might be (even as we acknowledge that at times certain entities entrap or entice such behaviour for their own purposes). For most mainstream Muslims who condemn, the condemnations are simply worthless, and they realize it. No matter what they say or do, the Right has already made up its mind and such 'apologies' fall on deaf ears, and the Left understands that most Muslims are not blood-thirsty killers hence no need for the disclaimers. If they don't condemn, they are called out for their silence; if they do condemn, it's not good enough: damned if you do damned if you don't! As well, the more such mainstream Muslims condemn this terror, the more some members of their own community begin turning away from mainstream body due to the servile nature of these apologies. "Does the Establishment ever apologize to *us* for what they have been doing for the last two centuries?" they bellow. Frankly, such disavowals from the 'moderate' Muslim leaders directly fuel the anger in a small minority, who already view the mainstream Muslim community as being sell-outs and liberal Muslims in the first place. To compound this problem, many mainstream leaders (and even some clerics) don't directly address the fiqh texts involved, and simply proclaim liberalist views as being fully Islamic. There are texts and fiqh issues that need to be discussed frankly- hardly anyone has done that (still!). What needs to happen is a more balanced narrative: one that takes time to explain, and requires an open heart and mind to listen to. In the absence of either of these two factors, it is almost impossible to begin a fruitful conversation. This random act is not stemming from a classical ruling on blasphemy. Such provocations against our religion and Prophet have happened constantly around the globe for the last millennia. Rarely are they met with such violence. This act needs to be understood in the broader socio-political framework of French Muslims vs. the French Establishment. The visceral anger and rage that causes one to 'snap' doesn't happen by reading a fatwa on blasphemy: it comes from a lifetime, or even generations, of systematic dehumanization and rejection. This is not to justify the attack; it is to contextualize it. Where does one begin? France's invasion of Algeria, and the murdering of over 1.5 million of its inhabitants during its colonization, is just a brief over-looked chapter in French history books. The sheer brutality with which the French dealt with their Algerian citizens needs to be learned by all of us (side note: 'The Battle of Algiers' is a great award-winning movie to introduce this subject). As well, the visceral hatred and disdain that the French had and continue to have, and display at all levels, for the cultures and religion of the very populations that they pillaged and raped, and the second-class citizenship that N. African Muslims occupy in that country to this day, are more direct cause for the violence than any verse or hadith. The blatant hypocrisy of "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" as these three factors are constantly denied to the Muslim citizens of that land all exacerbate the feelings of anger, frustration, and disenfranchisement. The ghettoization of the community, and the social barriers placed on them from birth, education, university placement, jobs, promotions, and social status are well known. In my own travels across Europe, and from my anecdotal encounters with European and Western Muslims, I know of no Western society that is more anti-Muslim than France. Simply put: one cannot discuss or understand (much less prevent) such isolated attacks without a discussion of the broader treatment of North Africans, and even of the religion itself, in that land. Sadly, the knee-jerk reaction from both sides typically further entrenches the stubborn attitudes and reinforces the narrative of each side. It's a complex situation, and one that does not bode well for civil society unless it is resolved with wisdom, foresight, and a long-term commitment to the greater good of all parties involved." — (end post).
  

The post (a link) above was tweeted by this man Roshan Salih - what he said in his tweet was a threat!! 

So as usual, the ever-erudite Dajjal gave us the real answer:

'Slimy shitspew: al-Taqiyya!! Now, by pdf, I show you page 717 of Ash-Shifa. Chapter (2) The Proof Set for Making it incumbent to Kill the One Reviling or Dishonouring the Prophet (pbuh) With respect to the proof set from the Qur'an, it involves that Allah the Supreme curses those who offend the Prophet (pbuh) in the worldly-life and the Hereafter, and makes anything detrimental to the Prophet (pubh) be linked with being offensive to Him. Thus, there is no discord as to killing the one who abuses Allah, and that Allah's Curse gets due on the disbelieving one, and thereby the legal judgment concerning him is to be killed.

Allah the Supreme said, 'Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment"( 1}

As well, respecting the killer of a believer (intentionally without right) the same is applied and the curse upon him in the world denotes killing him. Allah the Supreme said, "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for illegal sex), and those who spread false news among the people in Medina stop not, We shall certainly let you overpower them : then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. Accursed, they shall be seized wherever found, and killed with a (terrible) slaughter."

Regarding those who wage war against the Prophet (pbuh), Allah s Statement reads, "the recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides. Get the book from the archive and read the entire chapter, there is a list of a coupla dozen Moe ordered or approved of. 

Isdamnic law: Reliance Of The traveller: [@ IS FROM A SOURCE HTML, CHAPTER LETTER O IS LOWER CASE] @O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. @O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. @O8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties). 20 Acts & attitudes entailing apostasy are listed, a sample:

@O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief; -3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief; -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

That only applies to slimes, right? Wrong!!!! @O11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone). @O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people: -1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; -2- conceals spies of hostile forces; -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam; -4- kills a Muslim; -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam. @O11.11 When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14). *2*Chapter O12.0: The Penalty Isdamn is Isdamn, as Moe preached and practiced it. It is a continuing criminal enterprise, not a religion. Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial. Killing critics is sunnah!! Moe asked "who will kill" and "Who will rid us of", resulting in the murders of Kab Ashraf and Asma bint Marwan.

Muslims lie, like a fine Persian carpet. If their lips are moving, they are spewing al-Taqiyya. Another book: "Ash-Shifa" has, beginning on page 717, a long treatise on the legal necessity of executing anyone who disses Moe. The treaties includes a list of about two dozen killings ordered or approved by Moe.

Geezer Elite Turns Desperate

 By Bill Bonner during Week 29 of the Quarantine

In the 1950s, Tommy d’Alesandro put together the Democratic machine in Baltimore – then headquartered in Lil’ Italy (pronounced Lil It-lee).

His daughter Nancy (now Pelosi) was a pretty girl. Smart and tough, too. She went to Washington in 1963 to work as an intern in the office of Senator Daniel Brewster. She knows the place well.

Meanwhile, Fred Trump built a middle-brow real estate empire. He set up his son Donald in an apartment deal in the early 1970s – giving the kid a million dollars a year in income.

Mitch McConnell went to Washington more than half a century ago to work for Senator Marlow Cook. Except for a brief stint at a Kentucky law firm, he never left.

Joe Biden, ditto… In a flukey election in 1972, he became a U.S. Senator from the state of Delaware, just weeks before his 30th birthday.

Anthony Fauci got a job at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda in 1968. He’s been living off the federal government ever since.

These were the lucky ones… the elite. They gained fame, fortune, power, and status early on… and never gave it up.

And now, aging… listening to the Grateful Dead in their private moments… shored up by botox, hair coloring, and Viagra… as needed… they are desperate to hang on to the world that has been so good to them.

Signs of Weakness

But the world they built is a counterfeit one. And it’s getting harder and harder to hold it together.

Here’s Bloomberg:

Manhattan apartment rents plunged last month by the most in nearly nine years. That’s only one sign of weakness for the borough’s leasing market. […]

The median rent, with concessions such as free months factored in, plummeted 10% to $3,167. It was the biggest rate of decline in records dating to October 2011.

While renters flee New York, their jobs are on the run, too. From The Washington Post:

Layoffs still piling up as jobless claims remain stubbornly high

837,000 Americans sought unemployment benefits last week, the Labor Department said Thursday. […]

Another 650,000 people had new claims processed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance last week, the program for self-employed and gig workers, up slightly from 630,000 the week before.

The total number of people claiming unemployment insurance ticked up slightly, to 26.5 million for the week ending Sept. 12.

Sellout

We are exploring the sellout of America by its geriatric elite. They launched wars against drugs, poverty, terrorism, a virus… and especially, against honest money.

The wars benefited the warriors, shifting power, status… and about $30 trillion… to the elite over the last 30 years.

But the more they scam, the more they have to scam to keep the jig up…

…and the more angry people they leave behind.

After Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker “rescued” the system in 1980, the resulting fake dollar and fake interest rates produced fake wealth on a scale the country had never seen before. The Dow rose 29 times.

But the wealth was heavily concentrated in the richest zip codes. The rest of the country got, relatively, poorer.

Factory jobs decamped to China and Mexico. The old machinists, welders, and hot roll handlers in Gary, Detroit, Mansfield, and St. Louis were left behind. Now, they live in shabby neighborhoods… on disability, if they can get it… reminiscing about the good ol’ days.

Wealth migrated from the towns where people made things to the towns where people just made money. Like Manhattan, where apartment prices rose four times since the beginning of this century. And there, people made plenty of money, thanks to the Fed’s war on honest money.

Five Assaults

The Fed launched five major assaults. There were three waves of interest rate cuts – 1989-1992, 2000-2003, and 2007-2008 – along with a $3.6 trillion heavy artillery barrage after the crisis of 2008-2009 and $3 trillion more to fight the COVID Shutdown.

Almost every penny went to the richest, oldest 10% of the country… leaving 90% of the population behind.

This COVID Shutdown – another attempt to protect the old at the expense of the young – forced much of the economy onto the internet, leaving behind millions of face-to-face, hand-to-mouth workers.

Waiters, parking lot attendants, landlords in some areas, clowns in Disney World, strippers in Las Vegas… whole industries were decimated.

Many people will never get their jobs back. They have been left behind, perhaps permanently.

No Complaints

Meanwhile, the Boomer Elite… bless their hearts (including your editor and many of his Diary readers)… is living high on the hog. Maybe we weren’t as lucky as The Donald or The Nancy, but we can’t complain.

We went to college. We avoided the assembly lines and shop floors. We punched a keyboard, not a time clock… And come the coronavirus… we could work from home.

And we made investments… partaking of the great promise of degenerate American capitalism – that the government would make sure we didn’t lose money.

As often chronicled in this space, three times this century, the markets have tried to correct… and three times, the Federal Reserve has fought back, making sure the wealthy elite retained its ill-gotten gains.

And then, just to make it better for ourselves… we can move to a Zoom Town. That’s right, we can leave behind the whole complex of crime, poverty, job losses, politics, and social disruption… and live far enough away from the big city, where it is safe, beautiful, and pleasant… but still with enough bandwidth to let us “visit” with our children and grandchildren… and carry on with the rump ends of our careers.

Left Behind

And now… here we are. We save more than ever (what is there to spend money on?) We enjoy more time at home. Nobody asks us to get on a plane… to come into the office… or even attend a dinner party.

We boomers have left behind the factory workers. We’ve left behind the Old Economy and its hourly wage earners. We’ve left behind the towns where we were born.

We left behind the old folks when we set off to make our careers… And now, we leave behind our own children as we head for comfy retirement in Idaho or North Carolina (paid for by the next generation!)…

But wait… you say the biggest “Left Behind” is still ahead?

You say we’ve been promised $210 trillion (according to professor Lawrence Kotlikoff) in pension and medical benefits that can’t possibly be paid?

You say the feds already spend two dollars for every dollar they collect in taxes?

You say the millions of left-behind people are losing faith in the “social contract”?

You say that our geezer elite won’t be able to keep this up much longer… and that we may be left behind, too?

Stay tuned…

Regards,

Bill Bonner, currently still hiding out somewhere in Argentina.