Amidst the storm of Orwellian misinformation shaping our current world, up has become down, white has become black and good has become evil.

Despite the fact that the evils of Nazism were defeated primarily by the sacrifices made by the Russians during WWII, it has increasingly become popular to assert the fallacy that the great war’s true villain was Stalin. And despite the fact that unreconstructed Nazis were absorbed into the Cold War Five Eyes-led intelligence machine giving rise to 2^nd and 3^rd generation Nazis in Ukraine today, we are repeatedly told that Ukraine is a temple of liberty and beacon of democracy upon whose territory we should risk lighting the world on nuclear fire to defend.

It is thus a breath of fresh air when uncomfortable truths are capable of breaking through the drunken illusion of Orwellian newspeak which has contaminated the current zeitgeist. One such truth to come to light has been the mainstream media’s recognition that the disastrous Hunter Biden laptop and all of its scandalous contents were always genuine. These revelations have forced Americans to confront the fact that the current U.S. President directly benefited by the systems of graft and corruption which he oversaw while viceroy of a Nazi-infested Ukraine during Obama’s reign.

Channel 4’s Nazi King Exposed

Another explosive revelation which has sent shockwaves through the western zeitgeist in recent days was featured in a documentary which aired on Britain’s Channel 4 called ‘Edward VIII: Britain’s Traitor King’.

This film, based upon a soon-to-be released book by historian Andrew Lownie, uses recently declassified reports from the Royal Archives to tell the story of Britain’s Nazi King Edward VIII who not only desired a Nazi victory in WWII, but actively worked towards said goal from the moment he was forced to abdicate the throne in 1936 (allegedly to marry an American divorcée Wallis Simpson) throughout the darkest days of the war itself.

As this documentary proves, teaching his young niece Elizabeth II how to do a proper ‘sieg heil’ wasn’t his only dance with Nazism.

While in exile in Portugal where the royal hob knobbed with Germany’s elite, the documentary cites diplomatic cables sent by Edward to German officials demanding that the Nazis relentlessly bomb England into submission in 1940 encouraging the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. The film also cites a little-known speech where Edward called for Britain’s surrender to the Nazis in 1939 which the BBC refused to air. Even after being sent to the Bahamas by imperial officials who had decided it more expedient to put down their Frankenstein monster than continue with their earlier plans for a fascist New World Order, the Nazi would-be king had cabled Hitler’s officials indicating his willingness to return to Europe when needed and retake his rightful seat on the throne as an Aryan king.

Beyond the Film: More Nazi Roots of the Windsors

Beyond the case of Edward VIII, there are many other embarrassing Nazi connections to the house of Windsor (formerly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) which the film failed to mention, some of which implicate the late Prince Consort Philip Mountbatten (aka: Duke of Edinburgh) directly.

All of the Duke of Edinburgh’s three sisters were married to Nazi princes, and the husband of one of them (Sophie) became a Waffen SS officer with the rank of Oberführer (senior leader).

Philip’s sister Sophie’s husband, Prince Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, was chief of the Forschungsamt (Directorate of Scientific Research), a special intelligence operation run by Hermann Göring, and he was also Standartenführer (colonel) of the SS on Heinrich Himmler’s personal staff. Philip’s four brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking officials in the Nazi Party.

Philip himself maintained the family tradition, first having been educated under a Nazi curriculum centered on eugenics in the 1930s, and then going on to found the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) with fellow one-time Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a lifelong eugenicist and Bilderberg Group founder, in 1961. Philip and Bernhard were joined by Sir Julian Huxley (then president of the Eugenics Society of Britain) as WWF co-founder. In an August 1988 interview with Deutsche Press Agentur, Prince Philip proclaimed his desire to return in the next life as a deadly virus to help “solve overpopulation”.

On this virulent concept of population reduction, it is worth reviewing the life’s work and words of one prominent vice-President of the WWF from 1978-1981 named Maurice Strong who served directly under Prince Philip (then acting WWF President). According to Justin Trudeau, Strong had co-founded the World Economic Forum alongside Klaus Schwab in 1971, chaired the UN Conference on Population of 1972 and its 1992 sequel in Rio de Janeiro while juggling a wide array of hats from World Bank President, Earth Charter author, UN Environmental Protection Agency founder and architect of Agenda 21 (recently renamed Agenda 2030).

In a May 1990 interview with WEST magazine, Strong discussed a meeting at Davos and mused: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Prince Philip exuded similarly cold misanthropic “musings” as he contemplated the human zoo asserting:

“You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.”

The Disturbing Case of Prince Charles

Although Philip died in 2021, his son and heir to the throne has taken his father’s mission of reducing the world population to heart, through his leadership of various conservationist organizations, and as patron of the now defunct Liverpool Care Pathway, which was revealed to have euthanized over 60,000 British citizens per year, without their consent, between 2001 and 2013.

During its 18 year reign, the LCP had pressured hundreds of healthcare providers to put millions of sick and elderly (and expensive) patients onto “End of Life” lists without their consent resulting in forced dehydration and morphine drips to accelerate deaths despite the fact that life-saving treatments were still available.

In June 2020, Prince Charles co-founded the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative along with his colleague Klaus Schwab in order to take advantage of the “existential two-fold crisis” of climate change and a pandemic to radically remodify global behavior and economic systems. Beyond the pretty words used by Davos billionaires to rally humanity to save the planet, the fact is that those “green” Build Back Better reforms which adhere to sustainable energy, carbon emission cuts and food reforms as witnessed in the EU Farm to Fork agenda would result in a scale of death that even the likes of a Hitler might blush.

The Nazi pedigree of the royal family and its loyal managers raises the question: Why has their continuation of Nazi eugenics doctrine in the form of the euthanasia and zero-growth movements not become more widely known? What type of world do we live in, that such startling facts could not be general knowledge?

The Privy Council System

I hope it is becoming increasingly clear that the British Empire and its aspirations for population control never ended with the cancellation of the Hitler project in 1945.

I hope it is also becoming clear that this empire was never the nation of Great Britain, its Parliament, or its people.

The true Empire has always been a financial oligarchy which is used by a vast network of power structures to advance the interests of the aristocracy of Europe; The current epicenter of power is the Anglo-Dutch monarchies (otherwise known as the Founts of All Honours). It is this power that controls the Bilderberg Group, its junior appendage the World Economic Forum, and steers American policy through the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (the American version of Chatham House) dubbed by Hillary Clinton as “the mothership”.

Chatham House is another name for the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) begun in 1919 by the leading Milnerites of the Round Table Movement who created the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in order to promote eugenics and world government under the League of Nations. The American branch was given its name to avoid allusions to the British terminology due to American mistrust of British intrigue. The Canadian and Australian Branches were begun in 1928 and run most typically by Oxford-trained agents since then. In the case of the USA, current CFR President Richard Haass graduated from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar in 1978.

It was to leading Chatham House member Lord Lothian in 1937 that Hitler laid out his concept for the Anglo-German New World Order saying: “Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia… should arrive at some agreement whereby they would prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the establishment in the agricultural countries of Asia of manufacturing industries.” (1)

Any number of technocrats pushing a “Build Back Better for the World” scheme or “Global Green New Deal” could have said the same thing.

Today, the Canadian Institute for International Affairs has been renamed the Canadian International Council (CIC). The CIC is Chaired by Oxford-trained regime change specialist Ben Rowswell who worked closely with Privy Councillor Chrystia Freeland in attempting to overthrow the government of Maduro in favor of WEF-puppet Juan Guaido which continues to this day.

A key pillar in the control over colonies of Anglo-Dutch influence remains the Privy Council system, which is centered in Britain, but has secondary branches in select Commonwealth countries. It is under the Privy Council’s influence that lower-level operatives are instituted in the form of deputy ministers, the Treasury Board, Select Committees, and other appointed officials in the Civil Service. Other key nodes in the public and private sector manage the interests of the Crown. All cabinet members of government are made Privy Councillors and all Privy Councillors are sworn to an oath of secrecy and allegiance to the Queen including oaths to keep secret those things spoken of in privy council meetings. (2)

Strange things for paragons of the “free and democratic rules-based order”.

As Channel 4’s documentary on the Nazi King should remind us, there are certain royal closets which can no longer contain the voluminous skeletons that certain powerful forces have wished be stuffed forever out of sight. Western civilization’s failure to reject Orwellian newspeak and other inversions of truth has resulted in an existential tension which will be resolved one way or the other. If that means the anti-human legacy of Hitler, Prince Philip, Edward VIII and other royal Nazis past and present push humanity into a new Dark Age or whether we break from our slumber and seek a new more dignified destiny remains to be seen.

Notes

(1) Transcription in Sir James R.M. Butler, Lord Lothian, Macmillan and Co., London, 1960, pp. 332)

(2) Since it is hard for normal people to wrap their minds around the fact that such a medieval institution such as this still exists in the modern world, here is a selection of the Oath of Allegiance that all privy councillors must take upon entering that office: “I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.”

We all know that the western media’s Ukraine coverage has been highly charged, playing on western feelings of sympathy for (some) underdog ‘victims’, and directing feelings towards a moral outrage that insists – even demands – retribution and punishment for the perceived perpetrators.

David Brooks in the New York Times elevates this feeling of guilt to higher planes:

“The creed of liberalism is getting a second wind [and has] reminded us not only what it looks like to believe in democracy, the liberal order and national honour; but also to act bravely on behalf of these things. They’ve reminded us how the setbacks [may] have caused us to doubt and be passive about the gospel of democracy. But despite all our failings, the gospel is still glowingly true”.

Ukraine may be many things … but a ‘gospel of democracy’?

Every serious crisis, of course, is also an opportunity for mythopoesis – especially at a time of anomie, when a dispirited less than half of a society believes that their country is not invested in them and “that the economic and political systems (and the people who run them), are stacked against [them] – no matter what you do”.

The Anglo-American Establishment has proved adept at intuiting: that owing to such anomie and erosion of our ‘sacred canopy’, a ‘noble lie’ can be used to give a rules-based order a last gasp. Its’ inherent power can be harnessed to generate the outrage as casus belli for global liberalism. After all, what better unifying force than the ‘grand American project’ of war to energise one’s desire for a reappropriated national significance.

The West has taken dominance of the ‘information space’ to new heights: consolidating the media; tightening its hold on information; marginalising the few investigative journalists that remain; and nullifying scepticism as examples of appeasement, or of “Putinism”. Freedom of online thought is disallowed; selective broadcast perspectives are removed or allowed (for example, pro neo-Nazi sympathies and politically-charged violence against Russians and Russia); and a monopoly over truth is established. So that when caught in falsehoods, any errant intrusion simply is algorithmically ‘disappeared’.

There is no doubt that the West has refined this mode of battle-scape to the highest degree, but its very success also diffuses its own pathogens throughout the western capillaries. Once set in motion, it possesses all the addictive power of online gaming. Write the script for a new scenario; direct its production; and then stage it on video. Many may disbelieve the resulting piece, but there is nothing for them to do, except to watch it in mute, frustrated silence. Game over. You have ‘won’.

Except you don’t. This game generates its own momentum. There is always another, at hand, to trump the last player’s taunt at Putin; to hail the victim’s new act of selfless bravery; to speculate about yet more foul deeds planned against him. And so the demand for retribution and punishment is invested with unstoppable momentum. The logic to its structure makes it almost impossible for any political leader to stand against the swelling tide.

That’s where we are: Three realities that are so severed from each other that they do not touch at any point. There is the reality of PsyOps that bears almost no resemblance to the reality of the military situation on the ground. Indeed, they manifest as polar inversions of each other: A heroic resistance versus a failing, demoralised and hobbled Russian army. Whereas the reality is that “Putin is NOT crazy and the Russian invasion is NOT failing”.

Then there is the clashing realities of a Europe and U.S. conjoined in ‘an economic, moral enterprise of social power and fighting morale’ (albeit at certain self-sacrifice/self-flagellation to themselves) to punish Russia. And the other reality that a ‘world at war’ – whether kinetic or financial – will be a disaster for Europe (and America).

War is inflationary. War is contractionary (and inflationary too). Everything – oil, gas, metals – the lot – are going up vertically, and the whole production chain for food is under pressure from every side. But this situation clearly is less disastrous for a super food and commodity supplier like Russia.

The third set of severed realities are, on the one hand, the contextless, exclusive focus on the Ukraine events, which effaces this moment of global political and economic inflection, and – on the other – the elephant-in-the room which is the Russia-China mega project to force a withdrawal and containment of the entire ‘rules-based’ hegemonic order.

There are other severed realities out there (such as the one about Russia isolated and shunned versus the reality that much of the planet does not support U.S. and European punitive sanctions) – but never mind that.

The point here is not just what happens when these realities collide, but what happens when one or other ‘reality’ that already holds a hyper emotional, moralising charge is forced into full consciousness as having been WRONG?

This is the pathogen inherent in taking the battle-scape of information dominance to an extreme: It begs the question: in what way will emotions turn if all the hype falls flat, and the ‘bad guy’ wins the game? Will people turn against their present leaderships, or opt to double-down, demanding more ‘war’ as instincts rebel against any the realisation of failure inflicted upon settled quasi-religious convictions? The outcome to this psychic dilemma may determine whether we are heading to escalation and extended war, or not.

U.S. intelligence officials claimed on Tuesday that Putin is ‘desperate’ to end the conflict over Ukraine, with some privately suggesting he could even set off a tactical nuclear weapon in a Ukrainian city to get the job done. Fuelled by his disappointments, Putin could resort to using a small nuke: “You know, Russian doctrine holds that you escalate to de-escalate, and so I think the risk would rise, according to the doctrine,” CIA Director, and former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, Burns said.

There it is … the next stage of escalation. This now is being attributed to Putin, but the point is that it has been put ‘out there’ very publicly by the CIA. Is this ground preparation? An escalation to this level is likely not on the cards, so long, and only so long, as the option of sticking Russia into a Ukrainian quagmire remains firmly on the cards. If the PsyOps narrative – on which so much hangs – doesn’t stand up to the ground reality, the public will demand answers. Why were they led up “the Primrose Path”?  The setback to the ‘sacred canopy’ would be immense.

Biological labs have been found in Ukraine that reportedly have a U.S. connection: When asked about them, Victoria Nuland surprisingly admitted their existence, but said “she’s worried Russia might get them and that she’s 100% sure if there is a biological attack – it’s Russia”. On Thursday, the UK media led with the headline, “Putin plotting chemical weapons attack in Ukraine”. Plainly, the fear factor is being ramped to sustain a long-term insurgency/quagmire strategy for Russia in western Ukraine. It is, as David Brooks hinted, the last gasp in the defence of the liberal world order.

Can all this hype – small nukes, bio and chemical weapons – really take us to war? James Carden, in his piece says it can – and has. He quotes one instance:

“In a private letter written in 1918, the recently deposed German chancellor admitted that in the run-up to the Great War, “there were special circumstances that militated in favour of war, including those in which Germany in 1870-71 entered the circle of great powers” and became “the object of vengeful envy on the part of the other Great Powers, largely though not entirely by her own fault.”

“Yet Bethmann saw another crucial factor at work: that of public opinion. “How else,” he asked, “[to] explain the senseless and impassioned zeal which allowed countries like Italy, Rumania, and even America, not originally involved in the war, no rest until they too had immersed themselves in the bloodbath? Surely this is the immediate, tangible expression of a general disposition toward war in the world.”

Against the prospect that Putin may achieve his aims, short of general war, how might Europe and America react? They might react very differently.

Firstly, we must recall that one object of this ‘war fever’ always was to bind Europe to the U.S., and into NATO, and to prevent Russia-China co-opting Europe into the Great Asian Heartland economic integration project – thus leaving the U.S. as an isolated maritime ‘island’, strategically speaking.

The hardcore Neo-cons have had positive results: Nordstream 2 is cancelled – leaving Europe without a cheap secure source of energy. From the outset, the European project was conceived as a marriage of Russian resources to European manufacturing capacity. This option is now over. The EU has fully bound itself into the ‘fever’, and into U.S. sphere. And it has erected an ‘iron curtain’ against Russia (and by extension China). It has ‘sanctioned itself’ into a high-cost energy and commodity paradigm and made itself a captive market for the U.S. energy majors and American technology.

The EU has been fond of imagining itself as a liberal imperium. But that surely is gone now. Its’ Davos-style ‘re-set’, designed to steal a march on America, is defunct. The four key ‘transitions’ on which Brussels was depending to lift its reach from the national-level, to the global supra-national level, are defunct: Global ‘green pass’ health regulations, Climate, automation and monetary regulatory frameworks – for one reason or another – have failed and are off the agenda.

The EU was counting on these transitions as the peg to print a huge amount of money. They need it in order to liquefy an over-indebted system. Absent this peg, they are mulling a (highly inflationary) slush fund (ostensibly for defence and Russian energy substitution), financed by euro-bonds. (It will be interesting to see whether the so-called ‘frugal four’ EU states buy into this ploy for mutualised debt).

Yet inflation – already high and accelerating – is at the root of the crisis Brussels is facing. There is little to be done about this in light of the sanctions which the EU has enacted on Russia – with prices of everything going up vertically. And as for the other lacuna, there’s no way Europe can find 200 billion cubic meters of gas anywhere else to replace Russia, be it in Algeria, Qatar or Turkmenistan – not to mention the EU’s lack of necessary LNG terminals.

Europeans face a bleak future of soaring prices and economic contraction. For now, they can offer little political dissent to the controlling élites. The frameworks for genuine (as opposed to token) opposition in Europe, largely have been dismantled in the zeal of Brussels to suppress ‘populism’. EU citizens will bear the prospect in sullen anger (until the pain becomes unbearable).

‘Populism’ in the U.S. however, is not dead. Some 30 GOP Congressmen have opted to retire at the coming midterms. We may well witness an upsurge in the American populist sentiment in November. The point here, is that American populism traditionally is fiscally conservative. And it seems that Wall Street is shifting in that direction too: i.e. they may be getting ready to ditch Biden, and to support more fiscal rigour.

This potentially is huge. This week the Federal Reserve head said that whilst a part of the record U.S. inflation may be put down to Fed responsibility, Congress however was responsible too. This translates roughly as ‘stop the Big Spend, Biden!’. The Fed needs the space to raise interest rates. The head of Citibank spoke in a similar vein.

Will Wall Street swap horses (they backed Biden at the last election), and thus magnify the margin to the likely Republican majority in Congress? If so, with a big enough majority – anything may (politically) become possible. Republican conservatism traditionally (i.e. before the flirt with neo-con hawks) is highly cautious of foreign adventurism.

‘Whether it be BLM, Coronavirus, or now Ukraine, every single issue is talked about in apocalyptic terms and with gargantuan fear. But, as for all these frights:

“The deplorables are done”’. (paraphrased)

* Title borrowed from James Carden, writing in The Spectator.

No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power!
When the oppressed man finds no justice,
When the burden grows unbearable, he appeals
With fearless heart to Heaven,
And thence brings down his everlasting rights,
Which there abide, inalienably his,
And indestructible as stars themselves.

-Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell’s Rutli Oath

Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?

As the editor of a Canadian geopolitical magazine for over 10 years and author of four books on Canadian History, I am a bit embarrassed to say that I certainly didn’t think that Canadians had this in them.

The “monarchy of the north” certainly isn’t something that exudes revolutionary sentiment- having been founded on such non-revolutionary principles as “Peace, Order and Good Governance” which have stood in stark contrast to the significantly more inspiring “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” enshrined in the founding documents of our southern cousins. Even our founding 1867 document (drafted over a champagne fueled month of hedonism in 1864) explicitly calls out the purpose of confederation not as a means of “supporting the general welfare” as was the case of the USA’s constitution in 1787, but rather “to promote the interests of the British Empire”.

But here it is.

Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a 1982 upgrade to the embarrassingly oligarchical British North America Act of 1867).

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an “insurrectionist movement” full of “white supremacists”, “Russian stooges”, and “Nazis” out to “overthrow the government”. Even the Bank of England’s former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that “this is sedition” and that “those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law”. Carney, the perennial financial darling of Goldman Sachs and the City of London (and Prime Ministerial hopeful) called for a targeting of all those who donated money to this domestic terror operation.

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada’s capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate. This shouldn’t be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal “rules-based” order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the “liberty” of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony. The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks comes off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces.

So instead of negotiation and discussion around principled constitutional issues as the protestors have requested, we have instead seen only threats, slander and more threats ranging from cutting off $10 million of funding raised on GoFundMe on February 4, and then another $8 million raised on GiveSendGo on February 10. We have seen the government impose a state of emergency first in the city of Ottawa followed by a full province wide state of emergency on February 11 justifying cutting off vital supplies of fuel to those truckers and their families who have been camped out in -22 degree Celsius temperatures. Edicts making it illegal to provide supplies to the protestors under threat of fines ranging up to $100 thousand dollars and one year in prison have been drafted and the patriotic citizens who have organized for their right to not live under a dictatorship have been stigmatized by the media relentlessly as “insurgents”.

Emergency Measures Act invoked

Then on February 14, Justin Trudeau, followed by Deputy Prime Minister and WEF-Trustee Chrystia Freeland took turns announcing the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act which itself had formerly been known as “The War Measures Act” last invoked nearly 50 years earlier by Justin’s father Pierre Elliot Trudeau as a “solution” to the RCMP-directed terror cells deployed across Quebec and culminating in the month-long ‘October Crisis’ of 1970. The name was changed in 1988 although it is in function entirely identical.

Under the Emergency Measures Act, the Deep State of Canada managing Trudeau has adopted the Mark Carney program outlined on February 7 of targeting bank accounts of all Canadians either involved with the convoy directly or having supported the convoy via online donations or cryptocurrencies. What might those individuals suffer for the crime of having offered support or participation in the protests? Those ‘deplorable insurgents’ are facing the threat of seeing their bank accounts indefinitely frozen, and if they own businesses, having their insurance policies cancelled. The ‘big 5’ banks of Canada have thus been “deputized” and given full legal protections from being sued by those whose lives will be damaged by the shutdown of bank accounts.

One thing has become apparent thus far: the threats are not working with truckers and other protestors renewing their commitments to remain in place and even four Provincial Premiers (from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba) denouncing the emergency measures.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also loudly denounced the Act saying “the federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the emergencies act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: The act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes… Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously threatens the ability of the government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ and when the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.

Fissures Across the Establishment

Due to the inflexible Borg-like inability to negotiate with an organic civil rights movement suffered by all technocratic Davos-creatures, major fissures have begun to break throughout the political establishment of Canada.

Already two members of the Liberal Party have gone renegade breaking with Canada’s holy system of whips and loyalty to party above conscience demanding that Trudeau repeal the immensely unpopular and useless covid measures. On February 8, Liberal MP Joel Lightbound commented that Trudeau’s vile generalizations of the protestors have only served to “wedge divide and stigmatize” Canadians making the point that he has only seen a wide diversity of races attend the freedom convoy in Ottawa and across the provinces. One day later, a second Liberal MP Yves Robillard broke party ranks re-emphasizing his support for Lightbound’s statements and warned that many others within the party share these dissenting views and will soon speak out if changes are not effected soon.

In the Conservative Party, a coup of sorts took place on February 3 when opposition leader Erin O’Toole was ousted by his own caucus for sounding too much like a World Economic Forum ghoul and for the first time in over two years, an actual counter voice of opposition can be heard in the halls of parliament with demands by every single Conservative member of parliament to end the lockdown mandates and support the nation-wide protest movement.

On provincial levels, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI have announced a repeal of their covid mandates including vaccination passports, while Quebec has stepped back from the anti-vaccination tax which was threatened by Premier Legault until only a week ago.

Even NDP head Jagmeet Singh who had labelled all protestors white supremacists just a few days ago reversed his tune- perhaps due to the overwhelming presence of Sikhs in the federal and provincial convoys.

Freedom Convoy Nightmares for Technocrats in USA and Europe

Meanwhile the Biden Administration has given its full support to Justin Trudeau to use the full force of federal power to shut down the protests (conflagrating the blockade of US-Canada trade in Windsor and Manitoba as being tied directly to the Ottawa protests… which it isn’t).

Perhaps Biden is concerned that the example of the convoy has spread not only across nations of the Trans Atlantic Community and Five Eyes cage, but also to the USA itself where a parallel American freedom convoy will leave Southern California for Washington D.C. on March 5 involving tens of thousands of American truckers.

Former Obama Asst. Sec. of Homeland Security and frequent CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem delivered her disturbing comments to this festering problem which must be stopped at all costs saying: “Trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt: cancel their insurance; suspend their drivers licenses’ prohibit any future regulatory certification for truckers etc. Have we learned nothing? These things faster when there are no consequences”

How this process will unfold in the coming days and weeks is impossible to determine. The illusion of liberal democracy which fueled self-aggrandizing virtue signaling technocrats lecturing “bad” authoritarian states of Eurasia how freedom should work has collapsed.

One thing is certain.

Those tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers demanding the world to conform to their ideal post-nation state utopias are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights” which are inalienable to all citizens- even if they live under a monarchy.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

So here is the grim reality of life in Woke America 2022. In November, I spoke at a peaceful conference held by an organization that is deemed a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. The title of my talk was “Race, Immigration, and Con. Inc: How I Came to See the Light.” It was a wide-ranging discussion of my three decades of reporting on the nation’s demographic and cultural deterioration—which I’ve chronicled firsthand on college campuses, at our borders, and in every crime-ridden, riot-prone, and mass migration-transformed metropolis from Los Angeles to Seattle and Portland, to Baltimore, Washington, D.C, New York, and Denver.

As I’ve done throughout my career, I lambasted both Swamp Democrats and establishment Republicans for selling us out. The speech delved into the K-20 metastasis of anti-white curriculum, the corporate media’s whitewashing of black-on-Asian attacks, and the long campaign to censor nationalist dissidents who put America first. A week after my talk, San Francisco-based Airbnb notified me that I was banned from using its services ever again and imperiously deleted my account. Poof!

“My name’s Cedar, and I’m with Airbnb’s Trust team,” the Nov. 24, 2021 e-mail began. “It has come to our attention that you were a keynote speaker for the 2021 American Renaissance Conference earlier this month in Tennessee. Airbnb’s community policies prohibit people who are members of or actively associate with known hate groups. Due to your promotion and participation in a known white nationalist and white supremacist conference, we have determined that we will remove your account from Airbnb. This is consistent with action we’ve taken to ban people associated with this conference in past years.”

Malkin at AmRen 2021. Courtesy: AmericanRenaissance.com

Airbnb’s ideological witch hunts have claimed an unknown number of victims since 2016 as part of a woke company initiative to root out “bias” and expel anyone deemed an “extremist” with a “dangerous organization affiliation.” Press coverage of previous purges strongly suggests that the aforementioned character assassins of the SPLC are involved through use of their far left, anti-white, anti-Right “Hatewatch” list. Ever since I wrote my first book, Invasion, in 2002, the SPLC and ADL goons have sought to stifle my voice.

But this latest salvo crosses the line. It’s not enough that I — a “woman of color” (the Left’s own descriptive label, not mine) and mother of two multiracial children – was pronounced guilty of “hate” crimes and “promotion” of “white supremacist” ideas for delivering a speech whose full content Airbnb didn’t even bother to obtain from me. The Airbnb bullies also banned my equally non-violent, non-hateful husband – who did not attend the conference and who is not a public figure or activist.

Welcome to Guilt By Secondary Association.

“As we can see that your Airbnb travels are typically reserved via your husband’s account,” Airbnb’s “Trust team” member “Cedar” told both my husband and me, “we will also proceed in removing his account.” Neither of us had ever had a negative review, complaint, or policy violation of any kind. Are my kids next? Are yours? (Surprise: No response from Airbnb to my media inquiries on how many other family members of banned conservative and nationalist Airbnb customers have been swept into their thought police dragnet.)

“Cedar” closed his/her e-mail by informing me that the only way to appeal Airbnb’s decision is “[i]f our understanding that you participated in the 2021 American Renaissance Conference is incorrect.”

Take note: You’re damned right I spoke peacefully and lawfully to the peaceful and lawful 2021 American Renaissance conference and was honored to receive a warm welcome.

I resoundingly reject the notion that condemning Black Lives Matter and Antifa terrorists constitutes “hate.” I defy the Airbnb thought police who consider my husband and me “untrustworthy” and “dangerous” threats to community safety on par with convicted felons and sex traffickers. God willing, and with my readers’ and viewers’ help, I will fight these speech-stifling bigots who think they can get away with retaliating against me and my family for my journalism and activism.

I’ve received feedback from astute lawyers who note that public accommodation businesses in California, where Airbnb is based, are subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act–which forbids the very kind of anti-free-speech, anti-free-association, and anti-equal housing discrimination Airbnb has visited upon me and my family. Much more is at stake, of course, and there are other sound legal grounds for seeking relief.

As AmRen founder Jared Taylor told me this week: “Once again, in what used to be known as the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave,’ Big Tech is punishing people for what they say. After it gets finished with vaccine freethinkers, election skeptics, and people who think all lives matter, who’s going to be left? Democrat toadies?”

America First Foundation president and American First Political Action Conference founder Nick Fuentes, targeted by the feds, investigated by Dems, and deplatformed by a multitude of woke businesses for his peaceful political advocacy, added: “Every day the list of digital services engaged in discrimination against Patriotic Americans grows longer. Deplatforming on Airbnb marks a chilling escalation in tactics used by Big Tech to silence American conservatives.”

Cancel culture has reached a new escalation and I don’t plan on rolling over. Never have. Never will. I’ve raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for other patriots and heroes over the past thirty years. Now, I’m asking readers and viewers for help to fight my own battle – which, of course, is yours as well. Visit fundly.com/michellefightsairbnb to join the cause. It’s a time for choosing:

Defiance over compliance.

unz.com

Political leaders from around the world are experiencing the lowest approval ratings in recorded history. Emmanuel Macron in France, Boris Johnson in the UK, Justin Trudeau in Canada, and it seems the entirety of the Australian political class are all widely despised by the electorates in their countries. It is also the case in most European countries as huge demonstrations protest the increasingly Draconian and transparent Covid restrictions. Few now doubt that the absurd, incompetent and unscientific response to this Scamdemic is about more than just the Flu. Vaccine mandates are the cause of an immense pushback against what is now seen as a poorly disguised move towards totalitarianism.

Obvious to all but the willfully uninformed is that the political class are advancing the interests of an entirely different constituency that that of the people they purport to represent.

The Pharmaceutical giants and the control they exercise over the political system and all its institutions have been exposed. Public trust in the institutions that govern have eroded to an extent that it may never recover. To be sure, this political class are not the real power, they don’t rule, but they do govern. They have been exposed as little more than frontmen for the real power structure. They are unprincipled and lie with impunity even when they know they are not believed. They continue to act against the wishes and best interests of the public even after their lies have been exposed. They no longer promise a better future, all that they have left to offer is fear. Covid, Russia, China, all evils that they vow to protect us from.

While the political class relentlessly bombards us with fear porn, they reassure us that we are on the side of the righteous. Western values they proclaim are what makes us better than the evil Russians and Chinese. Never explained or elaborated upon, these values are those of a Neo-liberal democracy, we are assured. This apparently should be enough to satisfy and increasingly unsatisfied populace that all is well with the system. However, these values are neither new, liberal or democratic, Neo-liberalism is Corporatocracy. The corporate charter defines only one objective, maximise shareholder value (profit) to the exclusion of any other considerations. No concern for consequences or the human cost are to be figured in the profit calculus. If corporations are as they are legally recognised, “people too”, they then are sociopaths. To speak of corporate values is a contradiction in terms, there are none.

Sociopaths represent about 2-3% of the male population, less in women, about 1 %. It is a spectrum, not all sociopaths are serial killers. Defined by an absence of empathy and consequence for their actions, a sociopath will do or say anything that furthers his ambitions. They lie with impunity even when they know they are not believed. If this sounds like a politician you know, it is probably because they are indeed a sociopath. Corporatocracy requires sociopaths to run their sham political systems. There is a name for it, Kakistocracy, define as rule by the worst, least qualified. Difficult to dispute is that it is exactly what now governs the Western world.

Sociopaths are wildly overrepresented in certain professions. Senior executives at multi-national companies, especially CEOs, Law enforcement, the Medical profession and Politics. Another characteristic among sociopaths is their ability to be able to identify each other. This is a useful tool for those that select and groom these aspiring, flawed human beings for influential roles. Klaus Schwab, the sinister head of the WEF at Davos has been running his school for sociopaths for several years. Innocently titled the “Young global leaders program” he has been turning out some of the worst, least capable political figures in recent memory. Macron (France) Kurtz (Austria) Tony Blair (UK) Angela Merkle (Germany) and Jacinda Ahern (NZ) are all graduates. The European Union is overrun with them, including president Jean-Claude Juncker. America also has many of Schwab’s prodigies exercising power and influence. Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Chelsea Clinton and California Governor Gavin Newsome. To name but a few, none of whom could even be charitably described as decent human beings.

The unity which Governments around the world have followed the absurd Covid response has illuminated the power that this sociopathic managerial class wields. Even as the Covid lie and its attendant evils falls apart they continue to “double down” and strip people of their freedoms and grant themselves new powers they were never entitled to. We can be assured that while these particular Sociopaths continue to lose any credibility they had, a pipeline of fresh graduates await their turn to follow their master’s voice. If history teaches us anything, it is that those who want power, and the last people who should ever be trusted with it.

The public bear some responsibility too, the French should know better than to elect a Rothschild banker like Macron. And the British – an Oxford graduate and serial liar such as Boris Johnson. In defence, it should be pointed out that electing leaders from within the existing political establishment will only produce more of the same. The faux left, right paradigm is just political theater, a distraction, the same power structure controls all sides of the political divide. Choice without options is no choice at all.

We may look back on the Covid era has a turning point in history. We are at the point where the masses are seeing through the lies of the ruling class and their political lackies. Progress can only be achieved when the people reject the options presented by the ruling class and chose leaders from outside the control of the parasitic corporate elite. Covid has exposed many villains, but it has also produced genuine heroes who have courageously stood on the truth. Robert Kennedy Jr. for example. It is essential that decent, brave and principled people are pressed into political service. If people continue to settle for the lesser of two evils, no change can be expected and the west will continue to be governed by the worst, least capable among us. 

In early December Hillary Clinton appeared on the Today show to read aloud her never-used victory speech from 2016. The scene was bizarre, Clinton tearing up as she read in first-person, present tense about becoming the first woman president, something which in real life did not happen. She then layered on another alternate reality, one in which President Hillary travels back in time to tell her dead mother “your daughter will grow up and become the president of the United States.” She glowed; she was hearing applause that never happened.

The unreality of it all was leavened somewhat by the reveal Hillary is selling a video “masterclass” on resilience and the speech is somehow an example of that. While this may be just another example of a Clinton grift, like selling a Bill and Hillary Bass-o-Matic, the thing that stands out is never before has a Democrat loser been reanimated from the grave like Hillary. Al Gore and Michael Dukakis are two of those people you Google to see if they are still alive, and even an attention hound like John Kerry pretends his own presidential wipe out never even happened. A good political rule of thumb is to usher your losers off stage (or make them ambassadors.) Instead, Hillary was on the flagship Today show, not a late night infomercial where garbage like “masterclasses” in resilience usually is peddled.

But Hillary’s delusional take is not hers alone. After a second White Claw the faithful will insist Hillary did win the popular vote, which counts as actually winning in Clinton Math. They’ll quickly tell you Hillary only lost because Trump cheated or the Russians helped. The Dems and the media so believed that Trump did not actually win-win that they spent his entire term in office trying (unsuccessfully) to negate him, impeach him, prosecute him, or just magically wish him away with a fan-fiction interpretation of the 25th Amendment which presupposed Mike Pence was more evil then they were. The high point of the delusion was Russiagate, a saga entirely made-to-order by the Clinton team and fluffed by the media. It’s one thing to self-righteously say “Not my president” (some MSM pundits would add an asterisk to the word president* when referring to Trump) but it is delusional to say “and he can’t be yours, either.”

With Hillary granted a pass because she is using her defeat delusion to sell merch, one would have hoped the whole thing would have gone away with the election of Joe Biden. Democrats, you won! And you got the House! You can right all wrongs! Instead, the delusions just continue, an entire party seeming in the grip of political Alzheimer’s. One delusion is Trump will be pre-defeated ahead of 2024 by a mythical…  something. This has been kicking around since Trump won in 2016, the idea that he’ll soon go to jail over taxes, property valuations in New York, or one of his lady victims successfully suing him. Sure, the IRS has had Trump’s taxes for decades, there is at worst a civil penalty in property valuation tomfoolery, and all those victims only seem to end up dragging Dems deeper into the mud of hypocrisy as we’re told to believe all women except those who accuse Uncle Joe of getting a little handsy. Dems, if this is your best, your best won’t do.

Nah, that stuff is just chum in the water while the Grand Illusion is tweaked. That one is a dramatic statement democracy is dying in America and only defeating Trump (again, once was not enough) will save it. It is a big ask to a weary voting block because a) it is untrue; b) the only evidence lies in a made-up retelling of the Capitol riot and c) the Democrats won in 2020 in an election, something which strongly suggests democracy did its job. The rebuttal that January 6 was just a rehearsal is fact-free, and after all, real Nazis only needed one crack at burning down the Reichstag.

One can find examples of the delusion almost by throwing darts at the Internet, but a concise one is MSNBC meat puppet Brian Williams’ farewell address. Williams of course earned America’s trust as a journalist by constantly lying throughout his career, usually in ways that suggested he was studlier than the Rock. Williams said “I will wake up tomorrow in the America of the year 2021, a nation unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it, which is what you must do now. They’ve decided to burn it all down with us inside… But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to the main roads and highways and neighborhoods… Grown men and women who swore an oath to our Constitution, elected by their constituents, possessing the kinds of college degrees I could only dream of, have decided to join the mob.”

First of course, an acknowledgement Williams plagiarized the phrase, “darkness on the edge of town,” from Bruce Springsteen, himself given over to the delusion because even as he pals around with Barack Obama all the characters from his songs now vote Republican.

If you haven’t guessed it, Williams is referring to the delusion that the Capitol riot was the seminal event of American democracy. Williams, like others, believes Hillary won in 2016, that the Trump years saw America held prisoner, and that Trump spun up a mob on January 6 to overturn the election and remain in the White House as dictator. That none of that happened, and in fact could never have happened, matters not if you believe in it hard enough.

Williams is far from alone. “Democracy will be on trial in 2024,” the Atlantic’s Barton Gellman writes. “American democracy is tottering,” warns Vox. “Can American democracy escape the doom loop?” says one Salon piece. “If America really surrenders to fascism, then what?” asks another. “If Merrick Garland Doesn’t Charge Trump and His Coup Plotters, Our Democracy Is Toast,” says the Daily Beast.

“Are we doomed?” writes the once sentient George Packer. Packer actually imagines “A blue militia sacks Trump National Golf Club Bedminster; a red militia storms Oberlin College. The new president takes power in a state of siege.” Google up as many examples as you want, they are as common as anti-anxiety meds should be on Brian Williams’ night stand. Even Hillary has weighed in, warning “[2024] is a make-or-break point. Are we going to give in to all these lies and this disinformation and this organized effort to undermine our rule of law and our institutions, or are we going to stand up to it?”

Charles Blow in the NYT seems to take the prize, in an article headlined “We’re Edging Closer to Civil War.” Blow claims “this war won’t be only about the subjugation of black people but also about the subjugation of all who challenge the white racist patriarchy. It will seek to push back against all the ‘others’: black people, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ people and, yes, women, particularly liberal ones.”

So looking ahead to the democracy dies in the darkness delusion which appears to be the centerpiece of the Democratic campaign of 2024, Americans must be tutored to believe the Capitol riot was part of a massive conspiracy involving Trump, hoping to end democracy in the United States by overturning the 2020 election results via some means no one is able to articulate. All that could have happened was Congress delayed its largely ceremonial blessing of the electoral college results for a day, assuming they just did not convene the afternoon of January 6 somewhere else besides the chaotic Capitol. There is no realistic scenario that could have changed anything that mattered, and no evidence of any national-scale conspiracy underlaying the riot. It was just a bunch of angry people who got out of control for a couple of hours then went home to wait on being arrested months later. None of the rioters has been charged with treason or terrorism, mostly just trespassing. None of the arrested claimed they acted under any organized structure set in place by Trump or anyone else. In their trials each basically said the same, things got out of hand.

After selling voters that something that did not happen happened, the Democrats must then explain how after four years in power they have not really done much to bulk up democracy except whine about stuff that’s unfair, such as Republican gerrymandering (but not Democratic gerrymandering) and Republican poll watchers (but not Democratic poll watchers) and Republicans not accepting election results (but not Democrats like Stacey Adams not accepting election results.) Never mind out-and-out garbage like the same court system is racist when it acquits one shooter and on-the-mark when it finds another guilty based on the races of shooter and victim. Voters will also have to buy in to the Democratic delusion all the bad stuff they said Trump was gonna do but did not do — LGBT concentration camps, war with Iran, fascism — will for certain happen the next time.

Elect us to save democracy, say the delusional Democrats, ignoring the reality that democracy is bumbling along pretty much as it was intended to do. The Dem line would all make more sense if Trump had appeared bare chested at the Biden inauguration atop an M1 tank or something, but that is the nature of delusion.

wemeantwell.com

The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President, by Geoff Shepard (Bombardier Books, 2021), 384 pages.

There’s an old saying in legal circles: “A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.” That is, a determined prosecutor can allege a crime, somewhere, thereby securing an indictment against a hapless defendant. And if that’s true, then what can 150 prosecutors do?

That’s the question posed by veteran lawyer Geoff Shepard in his new book, The Nixon Conspiracy: Watergate and the Plot to Remove the President. The conspiracy Shepard limns isn’t by Richard Nixon, it’s against Nixon. A conspiracy waged by some 150 Democratic prosecutors and investigators, scattered across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, all aiming to bring down the 37th president—who was, of course, a Republican.

Shepard is fully mindful of the parallels. As he writes, “If Donald Trump hoped to understand what he would face upon moving into the White House in 2017, he would have done well to study what happened to Richard Nixon nearly fifty years prior.” In fact, all the parallels fall into place: zealous prosecutors, a leaky bureaucracy, an avidly supportive media, and pre-primed Democrats in Congress, eager to impeach the miscreant chief executive. (In fact, there’s a third Republican president who found himself in these same crosshairs, and we’ll get to him later.)

During the Watergate investigation, beginning in 1972, Democrats succeeded in doing something seemingly impossible: They overturned one of the most decisive electoral mandates in U.S. presidential history. First elected in 1968, Nixon had been reelected four years later with a massive 60.7 percent of the vote, winning 49 of the 50 states. And yet less than two years later, in August 1974, he was forced to resign.

So how did Democrats accomplish that feat? That’s the subject of Shepard’s book. Let him set the stage: “By the time Nixon took power in 1969, the ‘Deep State’ had held the reins of power for 40 years and wasn’t about to give it up. President Eisenhower had famously warned against the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but the Deep State’s tentacles reached much deeper than just the military and allied industries.”

As for Shepard himself, he worked in the Nixon White House for more than five years, first on domestic policy, and then as part of the Nixon legal defense team. The author doesn’t dispute that crimes were committed in Nixon’s name—most notoriously, the break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on June 17, 1972. And so he makes no attempt to dismiss or minimize the guilt of such figures as E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, Shepard paints Liddy, who worked for a time at the White House, as a nut, even a psychopath.

We can immediately observe that someone such as Liddy slipping into the White House is not a good sign. And yet the overall Executive Office of the President is a big place, employing thousands of people, and so it’s inevitable that a crazy or two can get past the gatekeepers.

In any case, as Shepard records, Liddy soon moved to Nixon’s campaign operation, the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP, or, of course, “CREEP”). And that’s where, Shepard argues, the real criminality was hatched. Campaigns, after all, are much scruffier, since they are focused on, well, defeating the other side. And to defeat the other side, campaigns engage in “opposition research,” which has, at one or time or another, included just about every possible means, fair or foul. Thus campaigns can attract netherworld types, who sometimes feel free to pursue their dark arts by any means they deem necessary. Keeping his eye on the present, as well as the past, Shepard adds, “As the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC showed in the creation of the infamous Steele Dossier, aggressive oppo research can get out of hand.”

There’s little doubt that the 2016 Clinton campaign was up to its eyeballs in the financing and disseminating of the fake-news Steele Dossier, which seems to have been an effort to defraud not only the FBI, but also the American people. In other words, it sure looks like a conspiracy so immense. Yet only now, five years later, have just two figures on the edge of the campaign, lawyer Michael Sussmann and researcher/fabricator Igor Danchenko, been formally charged. Yet it seems at least plausible that important Clinton campaign officials—and perhaps the candidate herself—were at least aware of these duplicities. Will any of them ever be charged? We don’t know.

All we do know is that in the case of Nixon a half-century ago, the legal piranhas were swarming, each set of jaws eager to chomp on the Republican president. And how could they not be ready to take a bite? As Shepard notes, the waters had been chummed by Sen. Edward Kennedy and his chief aide, James Flug, who were preparing what they hoped would be a triumphant Kennedy presidential campaign in 1976.

As Shepard demonstrates, a key weapon in this proto-campaign was the “independent” (sic) legal investigation of the incumbent president, launched in May 1973, under the leadership of Archibald Cox, a former campaign adviser to John F. Kennedy and then solicitor general in his Department of Justice. In fact, the very name of Cox’s investigative body, the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF)—signaled its intended teleology. (In later decades, subsequent iterations of the same investigative approach were softened to “independent counsel” and “special counsel.”)

Cox’s WSPF was a murderer’s row of partisan Democrats. As Shepard writes,

Some seventeen DOJ Democrat appointees, who had been removed from power as a result of Nixon’s 1968 election, regained full investigative and prosecutorial authority over a subsequent Republican administration… a special prosecutor and his team represented a handpicked, specially recruited cadre of highly partisan prosecutors brought together to focus on but a single target. This team also asserted jurisdiction over any possible investigations into possible Democrat wrongdoing—never actually investigating, but effectively precluding any such inquiry by others. This partisan targeting flies in the face of any concept of equal justice under law.

This is the heart of Shepard’s argument: From the get-go, WSPF was out to get Nixon. Not just the obvious Watergate criminals, such as Hunt and Liddy, but Nixon himself.

Those who might wish to discount Shepard as a Nixon dead-ender might be more persuaded by George V. Higgins, a Massachusetts-born prosecutor-turned-novelist who in 1975 published a non-fiction book about Watergate, portraying Nixon as a white-collar gangster. With no little bit of admiration, Higgins noted the purpose-driven life of the WSPF; the entire staff, he wrote, was “conditioned… by the Kennedy Justice methodology.” That methodology came from onetime attorney general Robert F. Kennedy, who saw the Justice Department as a tool to accomplish pre-determined ends. Hence the DOJ’s “Get Hoffa” team, dedicated to the conviction and and imprisonment of Teamster chief Jimmy Hoffa.

Higgins added that out of RFK’s instrumentalist ruthlessness “came targeted law enforcement: upon identification of the bad guy, the suspect may resign himself to merciless investigation, reinvestigation, indictment, and re-indictment, trial and retrial, until at last the Government secures a verdict which ratifies the prosector’s assessment of the defendant as the bad guy.”

And Shepard adduces another close observer, The Boston Globe’s John Aloysius Farrell:

Cox and his zealous staff had gone to work with an obvious aim—to get Richard Nixon—and with an array of prosecutorial tactics that would become so familiar to Americans as a series of “independent” counsels, in collusion with Congress and the media, hounded presidents of both parties over the next twenty-five years. . . . [Cox] chose a suspect first and then used a nigh-unlimited budget, his team of 150 investigators, lawyers, and support personnel and his broad subpoena power to find a crime.

Farrell also took note of WSPF’s extra-legal efforts to unsweeten the Nixon pot: “To generate public support for the process, Cox’s office deftly leaked to the press: over the summer of 1973, the media reported that Cox’s team was examining Nixon campaign fund-raising; corporate favors; the President’s tax returns, and government-financed improvements to Nixon’s homes in Florida and California.”

The result, Shepard says, was a “legal pogrom,” staged by “highly partisan Nixon-haters.” To put that another way, it was the Deep State rising against the Republican president.

In fact, the hating went beyond Nixon and his administration. Shepard documents that WSPF chose to investigate “every single potential GOP presidential candidate going into the upcoming 1976 election.” Quoth the author:

Internal WSPF documents that I uncovered at our National Archives show investigations of John Connally, whom they ultimately indicted in the Milk Producers case; President Gerald Ford; Vice President Nelson Rockefeller; Ford’s vice presidential running mate, Kansas Senator Bob Dole; and even California Governor Ronald Reagan.

And once again, it all leaked: “Somehow, news of each of these investigations leaked to an interested media, requiring each to defend himself against rumored allegations of financial wrongdoing. The initiatives of this task force required the work of eight prosecutors.”

Yet it wasn’t just WSPF pushing the needle past the ethical red line. There was also WSPF’s partner—that’s the right word, according to Shepard—Judge John Sirica. Sirica is typically remembered as a hero of Watergate; he was Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1973. And yet Shepard begs to differ with this lionization. He documents (in this book, as well as in two previous books on Watergate) that Sirica was in league closely with the persecutors, er, prosecutors all along. Regarding one of Sirica’s many improper ex parte meetings with prosecutors, Shepard writes:

If disclosed at any time during the scandal’s unfolding, [it] would have been sufficient to remove each of the participants—judges and prosecutors alike—from anything further to do with the Watergate prosecutions. Their presence at the meeting might have been sufficient to have them removed from office entirely.

Interestingly, none of these unethical sessions were disclosed at the time. And why not? Because those were the days of a monolithic liberal media, which was devoted to passionate cheerleading for the prosecutors, as opposed to dispassionate reporting on events. Shepard writes of the one-sided media environment, “There was simply no means for the Nixon administration to get its views on various issues before the American people at all.”

And oh yes: WSPF and Sirica had a third partner, in the U.S. Senate. That would be the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities—generally known as the Ervin Committee. Launched in February 1973, it was led by Sen. Sam Ervin (D-NC), a courtly old fellow who looked all of his 76 years. Shepard writes, “In essence, the Ervin Committee was run by its majority counsel, Samuel Dash.” Who, Shepard adds, “conveniently hired many of Senator Kennedy’s staff members from his earlier investigation.”

So Nixon was up against this federal-government-wide legal trifecta: the Ervin Committee representing the legislative branch, Sirica (and, according to Shepard, other judges colluding with him), covering the judicial branch, and WSPF, which was fully in tune with the Deep State elements of the executive branch.

Shepard argues that this combined-arms onslaught swept up the innocent, as well as the guilty. And among the innocent, Shepard maintains, was White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman, and…Richard Nixon. The Judas figure, in Shepard’s telling, was White House counsel John Dean, described as “a very accomplished liar.” And so, in Shepard’s account, the top Nixon men, wrongly accused, went to their legal Calvary.

Ah, but what about that famous “smoking gun” conversation of June 23, 1972—less than a week after the break-in—featuring that same put-upon trio: Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Nixon? Doesn’t that tape-recorded session prove that they were guilty, guilty, and guilty?

Shepard says “no,” arguing that the conversation has been badly—and deliberately—misinterpreted all these years: It was really about concealing the names of Democratic donors to Nixon’s re-election campaign whose money was being used for the legal defense of the Watergate breaker-inners. Understandably, these donors wished to keep quiet their connection to the dreaded Nixon.

Perhaps the June 23 conversation was improper, Shepard allows, but it was not the crime of the Watergate cover-up: “The only goal was to prevent several major Democrat donors from being embarrassed, and this was in no sense a criminal act.” Indeed, Shepard quotes John Dean, no fan of any of the people involved, writing in 2014: “In short, the smoking gun was shooting blanks.”

We can each listen to the tape or read the transcript and judge for ourselves, and yet for Shepard, the lesson is clear: the “smoking gun” was just the final kill-shot fired into the unfairly vilified president. The real story of Watergate, Shepard concludes, is “how President Nixon, along with a handful of well-meaning staff and supporters, ended up taking the fall for the misdeeds of their underlings.”

So we can see: before Trump was the target of the Democrats’ legal-industrial complex, Nixon was the target.

Indeed, we can now add a third Republican presidential target, Ronald Reagan. It’s less remembered now, but the 40th president faced a similar legal-investigative barrage, beginning in 1986, in the form of the Iran-Contra investigation. Indeed, Democrats winched up all their legal siege machinery: a Congressional select committee, an “independent” investigation filled with Democratic hit-men, and, of course, a collusionist media; in the exultant words of Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, a leading enemy of Nixon, “I haven’t had so much fun since Watergate.”

The Iran-Contra investigation was certainly damaging to Reagan, and yet it fell far short of the Nixonian benchmark; in fact, by the end of his presidency, the Gipper was once again flying high.

One fine day, some careful chronicler will outline all the parallels of these three cases across five decades, tallying the score as one clear political kill (Nixon) one partial kill (Trump), and one mere damage to the target (Reagan).

Yet for now, Shepard has written a persuasively contrarian history of the first of these legal assaults on a Republican president. And who knows: By the time someone gets around to connecting the dots on the first three, there will be a fourth.

theamericanconservative.com

Ilove Freddie de Boer’s Substack newsletter (to which you can subscribe for free right now). He’s a young Marxist, but more than that, he’s interesting and fearless, and I often learn from him. Below is his entire latest communiqué — uncharacteristically short, but it gives you a great idea of how he thinks — and here, he’s pretty much right:

It would be a mistake to say that social justice politics – OK, alright, fine, f*ck it, wokeness – is winning. It’s not losing, either. I think winning and losing implies a level of coherence to the project and materialism to the stakes that simply aren’t there. But I will say this. Those who draw their lifesbreath and their paychecks from the ritualistic expression of outrage can look out at their world and see nothing to fear. In the most obvious outward ways their chokehold on our communal idea of who and what we are and should be has never been tighter. There is no hope for reform in the expected manner, no chance that billowing Republicans or whining liberals or antique Marxists like me will talk the world out of it, will convince elite society to believe in freedom and nuance and forgiveness again. That will not occur.

But. There is a second front, in this war, a hidden battlefield on which the social justice movement is slowly losing to the forces of… not liberalism, not reaction, not conservatism, not civil liberties, not plain ol’ common sense, but anarchy, resistance, revulsion towards piety, the desire for revenge, the death drive, animal spirits, the id, the unheimlich, Jungian impulse, and most of all utter and total moral exhaustion. These are chip chip chipping away at the arrogant command of our moral betters. There are forces arrayed against the piety and vengefulness of social liberalism that cannot possibly meet it on the open field but which every day wage guerrilla warfare and, slowly, the great shaggy beast is bleeding out, that creature of preening righteousness slowly crippled by its hubris and arrogance. What looks like the inevitable and impregnable demands of history right now will look in time like the decaying aristocratic mores they are. An army of grinning goblins marches against the woke, and they take up their knives and syringes with glee while the forces of social justice trudge on, miserable, one more joyless day after another, hating themselves and each other. I am not saying the forces of opposition are good; they are, indeed, bad by their elementary nature. But still, in the conflict ahead I have my money on chaos, the ever-turning gyre, and the will to disobey. Tomorrow will not be like today, and the ones who now indict the unclean and issue verdicts and dole out punishments and deny every application for parole will wake up one day and wonder where it all went wrong. The witching hours approaches, the rabbis will be chased from the temple, and no one can say how the wheel will spin. Take shelter and tremble, or better yet, enjoy.

Happy Thanksgiving, guys.

I think he’s wrong about the “forces of opposition” being bad — some are, most aren’t — but of course a Marxist would say that. What I’m interested in is his belief that the revolt against wokeness and top-down social control will be violent, chaotic, and, well, revolutionary. And once again, Ross Douthat’s prophetic warning to the Left arises: If you don’t like the Religious Right, wait till you see the Post-Religious Right. 

What the woke elites are doing is building up within normal people a contempt that corrodes belief in the legitimacy of the system. Jordan Peterson released this week a two-hour Jonathan Pageau lecture about sacred order and social order. You should watch the whole thing, but here I’ve cued up a section near the very end, in which Pageau explains how “inclusivity” is going to bring about the collapse of civilization and/or tyranny:

His argument is about purpose. In order for a group, organization, or even a society to fulfill its purpose, it has to be judgmental and discriminating. That is, it has to select for the qualities that allow the entity to do what it is supposed to do. So, when a newspaper (for example) hires reporters, it has to discriminate in favor of job candidates who are better at reporting and writing. But for as long as I have been in the journalism business, the leadership class in American journalism has been obsessed with “diversity,” such that the less competent have been hired over the more competent, because the less competent were chosen for reasons having nothing to do with the ability to do the job for which they are hired. Liberals hate hearing this, but it’s true, and I have seen it up close on more than one occasion, and had to deal personally with the consequences. According to Pageau’s principle, a newspaper that is administered according to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion principles would be one that cannot help but decline, because it has populated its worker base with people who were not selected for their ability to fulfill the function of the organization, but rather to embrace DEI.

I once argued with a member of the leadership class who insisted that quality would not go down if a newspaper prioritized diversity in hiring, because “diversity is an aspect of quality.” This senior editor genuinely believed it. But it is not true. This is why nobody who runs a professional sports team hires for diversity. It’s interesting that the only major institution in America that doesn’t hire and manage itself according to DEI principles are professional sports teams. Not even the US military does this anymore!

Those who haven’t drunk the woke Kool-aid understand that you cannot run a society like this indefinitely. Things will fall apart. When a significant mass of people come to understand that none of this failure had to happen, that it was imposed on our society by woke ideologues, then things will shatter, and who knows how it’s going to shake out? If there’s any institution that ought to be immune to woke ideology, it’s the US military, because its sole task is to win wars. But now the Armed Forces has been captured by wokeness. Watch this interview with three female West Point cadets — one of them black — who left the academy, and who say that wokeness has conquered West Point’s mind. 

And check out this video from the US Air Force Academy’s football team, endorsing Black Lives Matter and the “antiracism” movement of Ibram X. Kendi. Some USAF Academy veterans launched STAARS, an activist group dedicated to fighting wokeness in the military. You should check it out. Below, I am going to post the entire press release that STAARS founder USAF Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop (Ret.) wrote explaining why he founded the group.

Back to Pageau for a second. He’s saying that the mania for “inclusivity” over quality will inevitably frustrate the purpose of any organization that accepts it. It’s mindless egalitarianism. For example, a society that refuses to recognize that the purpose of a family is to produce the next generation, and therefore declares that all family forms are equally as good as any other, is going to hurt its ability to produce the next generation. Back in 2013, I was visiting a conservative Christian university as a speaker, and in a pre-speech dinner, asked a small group of professors what their greatest concern about the coming generation (of students) was. One of them said, with tears in his eyes, that they wouldn’t be able to form families.

How is that possible? I asked. These kids are Christians. He said, “But they have never seen it” — “it” being a stable, functional family. These weren’t kids who had been catechized by wokeness. These are young people who were raised in a society that is falling apart because it has lost a sense of purpose, and a sense that to fulfill a purpose requires behaving in certain ways.

This loss of purpose and meaning is endemic to modern society, and did not emerge with wokeness. Wokeness, though, operates on such a demoralized and confused society, and begins with the premise that reality is socially constructed. It takes the communist delusion about the planned economy and applies it to social relations. It is not purposeless, but it rather assumes that the purpose of all social relationships and organizations is to instantiate “social justice” as it perceives it. I was just recording the Irreverend podcast with Anglican priests Jamie Franklin and Daniel French, and we discussed the loss of a sense of mission within Christian institutions. Many churches have forgotten that the prime directive is to seek first the Kingdom of God, and instead have given themselves over to social and political activism. It should surprise no one that they are failing, because they have abandoned their main purpose for existing.

Again, I ask: why is it that the only institutions in America that operates according to the Aristotelian ideal of excellence and purpose are professional sports leagues? I think it’s because their fans would not tolerate losing. They understand that the purpose of a sports team is to win, full stop. But a society can survive sports teams with losing records. It cannot survive having a military that makes achieving a Marxist idea of social justice its prime directive, or near to its prime directive. (Or, to be precise: it cannot allow anything to compromise its goal of winning wars.) A school that does that will fail to achieve its purpose. So will a business. So will anything. A church that subordinates holiness to cultural or social politics will fail. It’s written into the structure of reality.

So, Freddie de Boer is right. This can’t go on, because it cannot work. But there is going to be a lot of suffering before its collapse, and what replaces it will probably not be nice.

Now, let me share with you the STAARS letter. It’s important. You need to know about this — and if you are a military veteran, get involved with the fight to save the Armed Forces from wokeness. In the original, there are links to videos. I can’t figure out how to embed them within these photos of a PDF, so I’ve linked them between segments where I can:

(Here is a link to the Training Clip.)

Here are the images from Takei’s book:

(Link to USAFA Convocation Ceremony.)

(You will have seen the football team video earlier in this blog post.)

(Here is a link to an article about the Air Force Academy “safe space”.)

Here are the Takei book images referenced above:

And here is a link to Takei’s Twitter feed.

More:

(The Commandant’s Memo For Record can be read here.)

(Here is a link to that Fox News video.)

That’s the end of the STAARS letter. If you want to know more about the organization, and to get involved, go to the STAARS website.These men and women are trying to regain the purpose for which the US Air Force Academy, and the US Air Force, exists. The survival of our nation is at stake.

Freddie de Boer is a Marxist, but he is not a fool. If we don’t defeat the woke now, the reaction that will defeat them is going to be terrifying. Happy Thanksgiving.

theamericanconservative.com

Fifteen years ago, a man who was head of the GW Bush White House bio-terrorism study group, and a special adviser to the President, unexpectedly found himself propelled into becoming the ‘father’ of pandemic planning, after Bush had come to his bioterrorism people to demand some huge plan to deal with some imagined calamity. “We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And travel? And commerce?”. From his perch of influence – serving an apocalyptic president — Dr Venkayya became the driving force for a dramatic change in U.S. policy during pandemics.

The then White House guidelines (born out of a bio-terrorism context), allowed the government to put Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and with churches shuttered, all in the name of disease containment. It seemed so simple; “Why didn’t these epidemiologists figure it out?”: A model of disease control, based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.

Well, from there, the “founding father of lockdowns” (not unnaturally) became successively head of pandemic policy at the Gates Foundation, and then President of Global Vaccine Business Unit. However, as U.S. commentator Jeffrey Tucker observes, the policy models developed by this White House study group “kept spitting out a conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I’ve read his memos from this period — some of them still not public — and what you observe is not science, but ideological fanaticism in play”.

Whatever its parentage, the lockdown movement that this adviser authored is global, ferocious, and, as a fully credentialised meme (bio-war parentage, White House and Gates), is almost irrepressible. It is the same in today’s euphoric stock markets: everyone gets caught up in the dance … chasing credentialised stock narratives to the point of irrationality. Who cares about the fundamentals, contra-indications, or even warnings from financial or medical experts. This pandemic policy approach has evolved into a form of contagion, in itself.

As in markets, so in politics: Memes, however well-credentialised, shift. The global political meme since early 2020 of lockdown and vaccine pandemic control – that became a quasi-hegemony – now is being overtaken by a fresh meme, and a new rising phase of politics: the politics of inflation.

Hot inflation figures are already defining the debate on the Biden agenda, the broader economy, and spooking the White House. Prices rose in the U.S. 0.9% from last month, for an annual inflation rate of 6.2% (the biggest inflation spike in 30 years).

This spike in inflation may sink Biden’s Build Back Better agenda (BBB), potentially killing a quick deal on the $1.75 trillion package. Many Americans are unsettled, finding themselves inhabiting this ‘weird pandemic economy’. Shelves are empty. Wages are up, but so are prices (by more than official figures suggest), on almost anything you want to buy. The stock market soars, on the conviction that the Fed can never allow ‘the market’ to fall more than 10%. The economy is adding jobs, albeit mainly low quality ones. But ports are backlogged. ‘For hire’ signs are plentiful. Yet businesses report difficulty recruiting workers. And no one knows when things are going to straighten out, or even if they will straighten out.

Republicans have been ramming home the message that the inflation spike effectively, is a covert government ‘tax’, and they blame Biden’s ‘Big Spend’ for the inflation demon’s frightening apparition. Some ‘up’ the anxiety further, reminding Americans that the global ‘Davos’ élite have been openly telling us that one day we will own nothing; have no privacy, and will be happy. And the way they will make it happen, it is said, is through destroying the value of money.

It seems that the ‘politics of fear’ may be ‘crossing the aisle’. But, in this shift, Big Tech cannot ride so easily to the Establishment’s rescue. With the vaccine meme, it has been relatively routine for the Tech social media to censor and delete all contrarian opinion, whether credentialed or not; but when it comes to inflation, ‘fact-checking’ becomes not just redundant, but counter-productive, for the ‘facts’ are visible with every purchase made. And every consumer can attest that prices are rising well above 6.2%.

Inflation will become the hottest political issue as we head toward 2022. Two ex-Federal Reserve members say the Fed should raise rates to “at least 3%,” and maybe 4%. And two current Fed Presidents warn that the Treasury market is “not as resilient” as it should be, and that even modest stress could break it.

The former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, says that if the Fed doesn’t deal with inflation, then it “could result in the re-election of Donald Trump”. The Fed however, is locked tight in a corner of its own making: it has to finance Biden’s big BBB spend – and this implies keeping interest rates low (to keep Federal interest expenditure from ballooning). To ‘Go Big’ with fiscal spending will just accelerate inflation, yet this what the White House wants to do, when it says that spending will win the voters hearts, and that Biden too, very much shares Americans’ worries about inflation, and the prospect of rising mortgage payments. It is a plain non-sequitur.

Another ‘fully credentialised’ meme, chased to the point of exuberance, has been the ‘re-opening’ and return of ‘normal’ meme – if only (and when) vaccination rates were to reach 70% (a rate recently upped to 90%). But there is no normal. We’re living in a new post-pandemic world. The ever more complex, network, economic system is experiencing breakages at key points.

The notion that the economy could be locked down for two years, and then simply would ‘rebound’ just as ‘it was’, entirely intact, was always magical thinking, (and yet was widely embraced on Wall Street). The more complex the system, the greater the risk of systemic instability, as cascades start to slide away.

And human psychology and social culture is yet another complex networked system. The pandemic has made us question the ‘way we were’, and to rethink our life-balance. The behavioural changes induced by the Great Depression, for instance, did not fade until 30 years after the Depression was over. Such is the staying power of social trauma – whether it be war, depression or pandemic. Accordingly, we will not likely recover from this pandemic according to the logic embraced by the ‘bounce back’ meme.

On the whole, the ‘meme-politics of lockdown and vaccine mandates’ may be fading, but the inflation meme and the economic aftermath meme has only just begun.

Digging down deeper, we find that all this furious meme-chasing does have a common thread. Tucker observed that that the original pandemic planning was deeply ‘ideological’. How so? It may have become political-ideological since 2020, but the planning was years earlier. The link perhaps is expressed in the career progression of the ‘father of lockdown’ (as Tucker calls him): aide to the U.S. President, head of pandemic policy with the Gates Foundation and President of the Global Vaccine Business Unit.

The link would seem to be the commingling of Big Tech (Silicon Valley), Defence Tech, Big Business (Davos) and Big Pharma – giving birth to the technocratic managerialist mindset. (The managerial technocratic approach which so spectacularly blew-up, with the U.S. rout in Afghanistan, leaving in its wake only systemic human instability seeping across the nation).

Tucker gives us this thought about the ‘ideology’ underlying so many of these seemingly credentialised memes:

“In a surprising interview, Bill Gates said the following: “We didn’t have vaccines that block transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmission. We need new ways of doing vaccines.”

“What can we make of Gates’s passing statement: “We need a new way of doing vaccines”?”, Tucker asks. “Let’s travel back in time to examine his career at Microsoft and his shepherding into existence the Windows operating system. By the early 1990s, it was being billed as the essential brain of the personal computer. Security considerations against viruses were not part of its design, however, simply because not that many people were using the internet …

“The neglect of this consideration turned into a disaster. By the early 2000s, there were thousands of versions of malware (also called bugs) floating around the internet, and infecting computers running Windows worldwide … The problem of malware was dubbed ‘viruses’. It was a metaphor. Not real”.

It’s not clear that Gates ever really understood that. Computer viruses aren’t anything like biological viruses. To maintain a clean and functioning hard drive, you want to avoid and block a computer virus at all costs, explains Tucker. Any exposure is bad exposure. The fix is always avoidance until eradication.

“With biological viruses, we have evolved to confront them through exposure, and let our immune system develop to take them on. A body that blocks all pathogens without immunity, is a weak one that will die at the first exposure, which will certainly come at some point in a modern society. An immune system that confronts most viruses and recovers, grows stronger. That’s a gigantic difference that Gates never understood.

“In short, keeping viruses out of computers constitutes the single biggest professional struggle in Gates’ life. The lesson he learned was that pathogen blocking and eradication was always the path forward. What he never really understood is that the word virus was merely a metaphor for unwanted and unwelcome computer code. The analogy breaks down in real life.

“After finally stepping back from Microsoft’s operations, Gates started dabbling in other areas, as newly rich people tend to do. They often imagine themselves especially competent at taking on challenges that others have failed at simply because of their professional successes … And what subject did he pounce on? He would do to the world of pathogens what he did at Microsoft: he would stamp them out! He began with malaria and other issues and eventually decided to take on them all. And what was his solution? Of course: antivirus software. What is that? It is vaccines. Your body is the hard drive that he would save with his software-style solution.”

In parenthesis, we should note that dualism in ratiocination has be-devilled western thinking since the outset: First, the divine sphere of perfection redeeming the corrupted sinful sphere of humanity. And in its secularised form: Science redeeming wayward humanity towards universal utopias. And in our Tech age, AI ‘software’ correcting and ‘improving’ human hardware.

Here is the point; and here the thread: All our seemingly credentialised memes are hollow, in the same way Gates’ understanding of biology is. “Early on in the pandemic, to get a sense of Gates’s views”, Tucker says, “I watched his TED talks. I began to realize something astonishing. He knew much less than anyone could discover by reading a book on cell biology from Amazon. He couldn’t even give a basic 9th-grade-level explanation of viruses and their interaction with the human body. And yet here he was, lecturing the world about the coming pathogen and what should be done about it. His answer is always the same: more surveillance, more control, more technology”.

Let’s not pin this all onto Gates however – this dualistic way of ratiocination runs through all of western modernity. Tech vaccines are the solution to the Covid virus. And, forced (human) separation is good for placing the malware into quarantine. The real-economy is the hardware that Central Bank ‘software’ will protect against recessionary pathogens. The Davos’ Re-Set will upload new global software for a ‘fairer, greener future’. A fourth Industrial Revolution is the digital technological management that will clean out Climate malware. Etc, etc.

In reality, all these are highly complex network systems, not susceptible to dualistic intervention. They work – if they work – as organic wholes. At best, we face systemic instability, as a result of these naïve ‘software’ interventions. At worst, systemic collapse.

At a time when the world is being overwhelmed with an array of perplexing problems, the political leadership necessary for solving them is coming up short everywhere. Is this perceived shortage of talent on the global stage a mere coincidence, or is it by design?

For 40 years, Klaus Schwab, the German economist and engineer, has played host to the World Economic Forum in the picturesque town of Davos, Switzerland, a venue that the WEF itself describes as “sufficiently removed to foster among participants a feeling of seclusion and camaraderie.” It is amid that comfortable setting that the global elite are seeing through their plans without much transparency in the process. It’s probably safe to say that the financial elite deciding the fate of the planet at an isolated Swiss ski resort is probably not what the Ancient Greeks had in mind when they theorized about democracy and ‘rule of the people.’

Yet that is exactly what we’ve come to inherit from this exclusive Forum, which fervently believes that global affairs are best managed by an unelected assembly of corporations and technocrats that exert unprecedented power over governments and civil society. And now, thanks to the totally, 100% completely unexpected visitation to planet Earth by a virus of uncertain origins, the elite have been blessed with “a rare but narrow window of opportunity,” according to Schwab, to “reset our world” through a grand initiative known as the Great Reset, which can be summed up in six words: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

With such a downsized future ahead of us, the one question that seems to have escaped the world’s divided attention is: how is it remotely possible that one individual has managed to concentrate so much unwieldy power into his hands? The short answer is that it was probably no accident.

As the quaint story goes, in February 1971 the 32-year-old Schwab somehow managed to organize the first ‘European Management Symposium’ in Davos, which would change its name in 1987 to the World Economic Forum. That first meeting managed to attract over 400 corporate executives from 31 nations, an astonishing feat even for an ambitious young man like Schwab. In fact, the native of Ravensburg, Germany may have been less directly involved in the formation of the group than is typically believed.

As the journalist Ernst Wolff explains, “the Harvard Business School had been in the process of planning a management forum of their own, and it is possible that Harvard ended up delegating the task of organizing it to him.” Incidentally, 1971 was the very same year that President Richard Nixon enacted a plan that ended dollar convertibility to gold, a move that soon brought an end to the Bretton Woods System.

Now that Klaus Schwab and the WEC have drafted up the blueprints for their highly coveted technocratic state, there remains one crucial key, and that is making sure leaders sympathetic to the message are in positions of power to see it through.

Welcome to Schwab’s ‘Young Global Leaders’

In 1992, Schwab and the WEC established the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which went on to become Young Global Leaders in 2004. The Who Who’s list of past members of this “most exclusive private social network in the world,” as Bloomberg described it, suggests that Davos Man was fishing for a very particular type of future leader.

Included among the alumni of this elite grooming factory are former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Aside from Blair, who hailed from an earlier, more muscular period of U.S.-dominated history that focused heavily on the ‘war on terror,’ the two common features that unite these politicians is their strong liberal tendencies and draconian approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Last month, Jacinda Ardern, for example, without the slightest hint of regret, smiled as she said that New Zealand was on its way to becoming a “two-tier society,” divided between those who choose to get the Covid vaccine and those who do not. Currently, residents must scan into stores using a QR code, which isn’t tied to a person’s vaccine status, but rather used for ‘contact tracing.’ Eventually, the Ardern government plans to implement vaccine passports and all of the delightful chaos that will inevitably incur.

In France, another graduate from the Young Global Leaders (YGL), French President Emmanuel Macron, has made it mandatory that visitors to cultural venues, like museums and theaters present a so-called ‘green pass’ to gain entry. Thus far, however, public resistance is stalling any future efforts at preventing the unvaccinated from shopping at the large retail outlets.

“There are protests all the time,” said Peter Kellow, a correspondent from London now residing in Toulouse. “I can use all the shops now. They tried making hypermarkets illegal for the non-vaxxed but backed down.”

“I expect the big companies were losing too much business,” he added.

Meanwhile, across the pond, in the United States, California Governor Gavin Newsom (Class of 2005), after mandating first-in-the-nation school masking and staff vaccination protocols, now wants to enforce vaccinations on children as young as five years old. Protesters gathered at the State Capitol in Sacramento this week in an effort to prevent the mandate from passing. Organizers of the rally emphasized they are not against vaccines, but simply want to have a democratic say in the matter.

A striking thing about the global leaders who passed through Schwab’s tutelage is their relative lack of any special achievements before rising to power. As Wolff further explains in an interview with the RAIR Foundation, “the thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power…” Wolff goes on to surmise that this may demonstrate that it is “their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers.”

As shocking as it may be that so many like-minded politicians did an apprenticeship under the direction of Klaus Schwab, that twist of fate pales in comparison with the news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates also fell under the sway of YGL (Class of 2003). Perhaps more than any other person, Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and despite having no medical training whatsoever, has been a staunch proponent of Covid-19 vaccines. The problem here is not the vaccines per se, but rather the massive conflict of interest for the parties involved.

Here we have the secretive World Economic Forum not only grooming young overachievers who go on to advocate on behalf of Mr. Schwab and his technocratic vision for the future (i.e. the Great Reset), but also the business leaders who will profit handsomely from the great global transition, which the pandemic has made possible.

Take, for example, Jeff Bezos, yet another alumnus of YGL. Mr. Bezos saw his personal wealth explode exponentially as small businesses, many of which will never rise from the ashes, were forced to close their doors at the peak of pandemic. Millions of consumers, forced to ‘shelter in place,’ did the only thing possible, which was to flock to online stores, like Amazon.

Again, it is the glaring conflict of interest that makes the story of Klaus Schwab, the WEF and these fine, young protégés, who are perfectly placed at just the right moment in Schwab time, not a little disturbing. Not only did the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security anticipate with astonishing accuracy the outbreak of a pandemic just two months before it happened with a security exercise dubbed ‘Event 201,’ the predicted health emergency allowed for Schwab’s long sought-after “better world” that he discussed with such enthusiasm in his book, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset.’

“At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally,” Schwab writes, once again, with amazing foresight, especially considering the pandemic was just six months old. “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”

“Some analysts call it a major bifurcation, others refer to a deep crisis of “biblical” proportions,” he continues, “but the essence remains the same: the world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more, dissolved in the context of the pandemic.”

Few other men have had the pleasure of watching their life dream – and a bold one at that – play out in real time as Klaus Schwab has. Indeed, the 83-year-old may just live to see his Great Reset come to fruition in his own lifetime. How much of that was the result of intense planning and preparation, or a random roll of the dice is anybody’s guess, but it may be wise to heed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s keen observation that “in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”