‘‘Taking out the trash’ refers to politicians releasing bad news when it’s least likely to be noticed, such as a Friday afternoon before a three-day weekend.
Both sides of politics do it.
But now, the US mainstream media have started doing it over their suppressing reporting of the Hunter Biden laptop during the 2020 election.
Senator Ted Cruz concludes that there is a confluence of institutions – media, Democrats, bureaucrats, universities and big business – determined to deceive and lie to the people.
This US establishment has learned from Beijing how to marry ideology – communism with either Chinese or American characteristics – with the potential to reap massive wealth from corrupting government to make them all Soros-like, new-style communist billionaires.
Added to that, building on abuses matured under Obama, they have dared to undermine traditional checks and balances so essential to our system.
This is done by weaponising and politicising institutions against their opponents, institutions which in a democracy must be above the political fray. Well described in Ted Cruz’s Justice Corrupted: How the Left Weaponized Our Legal System, this involves misusing the taxation bureaucracy (IRS) and the justice system (DoJ, FBI) against enemies. And don’t think Australia is immune. Just recall what Victorian authorities and the ABC did to Cardinal Pell.
Meanwhile, in the Australian mainstream media echo chamber, hardly a day goes by when there is not some attack on Donald Trump, all the while ignoring damning evidence on the Biden family such as that released through the coming Republican-dominated House Oversight Committee.
Yet not only were Trump’s achievements remarkable, domestic and foreign, he was alone among Western leaders courageous and honest enough to walk out of the ruinous Paris Climate Accord.
The only salvation for the free world can come from the next real Republican president. Fortunately, the choice will be made by the best judges, registered Republican supporters voting as primaries stretch across that great country, albeit at an infuriatingly leisurely pace. As to the Paris Accord, while this is doomed to have zero effect on the climate, a trite application of the follow-the-money principle indicates its sole beneficiaries are, unsurprisingly, the usual assorted billionaires.
These especially include the murderous multi-billionaire gangsters in Beijing who are bleeding the Chinese people dry while profiting from their infamous sideline, the on-demand trade in human organs ripped out of the living bodies of healthy young Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners.
Meanwhile, they are laughing all the way to the bank as our leaders line up to sign up for net zero, something Alan Jones long ago warned would be a ‘national suicide note’.
This is nothing more than a betrayal of Australia, a veritable treason of the elites.
Just on that, the uninformed (especially those exposed to modern education) were no doubt scared by the recent official ‘State of the Climate Report’, which was, of course, the intention.
While its assertion of increasing temperatures was reported in the mainstream media as unquestionable fact, scientist Jo Nova points out that satellites show that, despite an increase in CO2 (which Peter Ridd points out is greening Australia), there has been no warming in Australia in the last ten years.
But, she says, if you use thermometers in carparks, near runways, or close to incinerators, you’ll find the increase that will ensure the grants keep flowing in. Helped by lowering past readings, perhaps?
To return to the media taking out the trash, we saw a spectacular example over Thanksgiving when CBS suddenly announced they had finally authenticated the infamous Hunter Biden laptop.
But they’re still pretending there’s no evidence to show Joe Biden was the ‘Big Guy’ receiving 10 per cent from the sale of access and influence into Washington.
Two years before, on CBS’s 60 Minutes, presenter Lesley Stahl forbade President Trump from even referring to the laptop because the story ‘could not be authenticated’.
But Stahl curiously never asked for authentication when Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi cast doubt on whether the Holocaust had occurred.
Cruz says that the story about the Hunter Biden laptop and the Biden family’s corrupt dealings with foreign powers, was ‘incredibly inconvenient’ because it broke in the New York Post just before the 2020 election and could have affected the way the establishment had decided the vote should go.
So, he says, the FBI contacted ‘their buddies in big tech’ to ask them to suppress this on the tired old ground that it was ‘Russian disinformation’.
This blatant lie was conveniently supported by an open letter from more than fifty former senior ‘intelligence’ officials .
Acting in concert, Cruz says, Facebook and Twitter then took down not just the story but the New York Post.
Rather than asking Biden about the laptop, the mainstream media preferred to ask him about such important issues as the flavour of the ice cream he would so ostentatiously eat in front of them.
Now, after two years, and with the 2020 and 2022 elections safely out of the way, the mainstream media are changing their story.
For two reasons. First, Republicans have won the House and are already starting investigations to show that Joe Biden lied and was the ‘Big Guy’ raking in his 10 per cent.
Their recent first report has been almost totally ignored by the mainstream media and its Australian echo chamber. But as hearings begin in the New Year, the mainstream want to be able to say: ‘Nothing new here. We’ve already covered that.’
The second reason the mainstream media are changing direction is that the establishment have decided that their ‘useful idiot’, Biden, is in fact no longer useful. This is not only because he is being exposed as the Manchurian candidate this column warned of as long ago as 24 October 2020, but also because he is threatening to stand in 2024.
‘John Dunn, a street preacher, had Public Order Act charges dropped after prosecutors claimed parts of the Bible are ‘abusive’ and ‘no longer appropriate in modern society.’
John, a cancer survivor from Swindon who has served in the British Army’s Special Forces, was interviewed under caution and subsequently summonsed by the police for alleged ‘homophobia’ after preaching on Swindon High Street in November 2020.
Mr Dunn, who regularly preaches despite having lost his voice box following throat cancer, is a Bible-believing Christian who preaches in Swindon town centre. He considers preaching on the streets and speaking God’s truth to be an essential part of his Christian calling, which he has been doing for 15 years.
After an interaction with two women who said they were in a same-sex marriage, John was reported to police and then charged under the Public Order Act.
The Crown Prosecution Service argued when charging him that there are “references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.”
However, the case against him was thrown out after the two women reportedly ‘refused to engage with the case’ after making the initial allegations.
Following the outcome, Mr Dunn said: “Before I became a Christian, I hated people, I served with the Special Forces and I made it my mission to learn how to best kill people, that was my job. But when I met Jesus Christ, he changed my heart, took away my hatred and filled it with love. Jesus was the answer for me, and I believe the world needs to know and experience this hope. That is why I do what I do, to help everyone to find the light of Jesus out of the darkness we all live in.
“When I preach, I only ever say what is in the Bible. When they told me they were in a same-sex marriage, I was concerned for them. I had to communicate the consequences of their actions based on what the Bible says. I wanted to warn them, not out of condemnation, but out of love. I wanted to them to know that there is forgiveness through the love of Jesus.”‘https://christianconcern.com/cccases/john-dunn/
In New South Wales, Australia the supposedly conservatives are not going to tax the cow’s methane but they have a different plan. That is they believe there’s a problem when there isn’t and they are going to fix it anyway!!!
‘The NSW Government today promised to support – not tax – farmers to reduce emissions and grow their businesses, ruling out imposing a methane tax on agriculture.
Deputy Premier Paul Toole said a proposal by the New Zealand Government to tax farmers for agriculture emissions from 2025 would only drive up farmers’ costs without giving them the necessary support to genuinely reduce emissions.
“We have a clear policy to partner with farmers to improve their productivity while reducing emissions – New Zealand Labour’s policy is the complete opposite, and has raised fears it will shrink their livestock industry and drive up the cost of food,” Mr Toole said.
“Our Government has worked hard to shift the emphasis from regulation to incentive-based outcomes, putting us on track to halve our emissions while attracting up to $37 billion in private investment by 2030.
“We call on NSW Labor to provide certainty to farmers and consumers that they will never introduce an agricultural methane tax like this.”
Minister for Agriculture Dugald Saunders said the NSW Government is already working with the agriculture industry to reduce emissions in a way that doesn’t involve a great big new tax – and instead rewards farmers for actions that help drive down emissions.
“The NSW Government has introduced a range of measures to assist farmers to tackle climate change, as we head towards our target of net zero by 2050,” Mr Saunders said.
“We have the Primary Industries and Productivity Abatement Program, Biodiversity Credits Supply Fund and we are working on a range of new programs through our Natural Capital program.
“We are also collaborating with Angus Australia, the University of New England and Meat and Livestock Australia on a $19 million research project that aims to identify cattle that have a low methane output through breeding values.
“These sorts of programs will make a real difference to improving our climate and reducing emission, demonstrating you don’t need a great big new tax to reduce on-farm emissions.”
Angus Australia CEO Scott Wright said the announcement was welcome news for NSW beef producers.
“Additional taxes on beef producers are not a solution to the problem,” Mr Wright said.
Pointing out the naivety and flaws in the reasoning of Klaus Schwab and his wingman Yuval Noah Harari is a favorite trope of those writing from an alternative perspective. This recent essay, titled “The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari” (06 July 2022, Current Affairs) provides an example of the ease with which Harari’s popularized dark visions can be dissected and revealed as sensationalist tripe. As author Darshana Narayanan summarizes, “The best-selling author is a gifted storyteller and popular speaker. But he sacrifices science for sensationalism, and his work is riddled with errors”. Based on my reading, the same critiques apply to the books “COVID-19: The Great Reset” and “The Great Narrative” by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret. But the power of the WEF and its global army of trained agents to direct public policy at both national and transnational levels forces us all to take their poorly reasoned arguments and dark musings seriously.
It is one thing to criticize someone else’s vision of the future, but quite another to develop a compelling alternative. I have been traveling the world, trying to advance the cause of medical freedom and help others make sense out of what we have all experienced over the last three years. During these travels, I have found that many leaders from the various independently developed resistance groups often speak of similar things; a rejection of centralized authority, a need to build organizational structures which will not merely recapitulate the same leadership failures of present social, political, and corporate structures, and a vague sense of a more decentralized world. This is often posited as the alternative to the globally centralized, utilitarian/marxist/command economy, Malthusian corporatist/fascist vision promoted by the WEF, and increasingly by the United Nations, World Trade Organization, Bank of International Settlements/Central banks and the World Health Organization.
Is the dark vision of the fourth industrial revolution, transhumanism, fusion of man and machine, and total centralized control by a small group of unelected elite Overlords inevitable, as Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari would have us believe?
I recently learned of Christopher Michael Langan, who has been quietly developing one alternative vision which incorporates many aspects of what I have heard many global leaders within the medical freedom movement beginning to explore. Mr. Langen refers to this vision and model of an alternative future as “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe” (CTMU). When I first read about these ideas, they struck me as truly transformational in the same way that my first introduction to Mattias Desmet’s “Mass formation” theories have been. It is useful to remember that this theory of Mr. Langan was developed well before the COVIDcrisis, even though much of what he envisions and describes is prescient in retrospect.
By all accounts, Mr. Langen may be one of the most intelligent currently living individuals on the planet, and like many with an IQ measured greater than 150, it can be a challenge for the vast majority of us to follow some of his more advanced logic and writing. In his commitment to living a “double-life strategy”, on one side a regular guy, doing his job and exchanging pleasantries, and on the other side coming home to perform equations in his head and working in isolation on his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, I find many similarities with the way I have chosen to live my own life. Plus, he lives with his wife Gina (née LoSasso), a clinical neuropsychologist, in northern Missouri where they own and operate a horse ranch. I don’t know about you, but this sounds like someone I would like to meet and spend some time with.
Christopher Langen, weightlifter, construction worker, cowboy, forest service firefighter, farmhand, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island, New York, and a super genius.
Here is a lightly edited transcript of the video clip attached above:
We’re approaching a juncture, and this is really a bifurcation into possible futures. One of those futures will take us toward a centralized form of government. It’s more or less like a hive. A certain cohort of elites are going to be in charge and everybody else is going to be… They’ll be the overclass and everybody else will be a kind of underclass, which serves them and does pretty much what they’re told.
On the other hand, we can go in another direction, which is to distribute responsibility and decision making power over everybody. And of course, that takes enhanced intelligence and responsibility. So there’s a certain challenge associated with this. We have to make up our minds very quickly how we’re going to do this. If we want to distribute responsibility, then the first thing that we need is a sound understanding of human nature and the nature of reality, and this is what I propose to bring to bear on the problem.
Mr. Langen refers to the two alternative futures which he has focused on as involving singularities, alternative nodes through which humanity will pass. His language for describing these two consists of “Metareligion as the human singularity” and the “Technology singularity”. The technology singularity which he envisions is very aligned with the fourth industrial revolution/transhumanism dystopian corporatist/fascist government described by Schwab, Malleret, and Harari.
What I find particularly relevant to the current challenge of visualizing an alternative to the mutterings of the WEF and its acolytes is Christopher’s vision of a separate reality from the one that they wish to use in “shaping” a future.
Mr. Langen’s 2002 publication “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory” provides an example of the densely reasoned complex explanations which he often provides, in which he discusses concepts which rely on language and terms which he has had to personally develop because the English language is not sufficient to allow him to adequately express his ideas and insights. Fortunately for neophytes such as myself, his 2018 essay “Metareligion as the Human Singularity” (published in the journal “Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy”, vol. 14, no. 1) is much more accessible.
If, like me, you find the vision, thought and insights which I have tried to capture with the quotes below to be useful in imagining a better, decentralized future which offers a more desirable vision of the future, I recommend reading the entire work and then venturing a journey into the many podcast interviews and writings of this home grown American genius and philosopher.
To understand his own identity, man requires a coherent and therefore monic self-model reflecting its psychological coherence and relating it to all levels of reality. That is, man requires a valid interpretation of the human individual in society, and of the individual and society in reality at large. This interpretation must take the form of an unbroken correspondence spanning the extended relationship between man, as an inhabitant of reality, and reality in its most basic and universal form; man must see himself as an integral part of reality, and reality as an extension of his own being within a single unified ontology or metaphysics. In short, man and reality must share a common metaphysical identity.
Where metaphysics is a language expressing the relationship between mental and physical reality, spirituality can be understood as the metaphysical essence of human identity, and religion as its organizational manifestation. In its various benign forms, religion provides man with self-understanding and a sense of community … a model of the individual and his or her relationship to other people, society, and reality at large. Religion tells people who they are, and mankind what it is, by establishing their relationship to the global environment on the spiritual level; it is a binary relationship of man to his real environment, and where the global environment of each human being includes all others, the relationship of mankind to itself.
The spiritual model of self, the extended man-reality relationship required by religion, is thus a stratification of human identity from the individual to ultimate reality, the level of reality that cannot be explained in terms of anything prior to itself or any sort of exterior embedment. This follows from the fact that man is embedded in reality and thus shares all of its most general and ubiquitous properties, up to human limitations of structure and dynamics. Parallel to this degree of extension is the outward extension of self that is sought in certain Asian religious traditions; the self becomes ever more expansive as its hidden depths are plumbed.
But here we must note that the phrase “ultimate reality” is necessarily a partial description of God, incorporated in the (otherwise variously defined) identity of all viable monotheistic religions. Any God not incorporating ultimate reality could exist only in a properly inclusive reality partially beyond His influence and creative power, and would thus come up short in virtually every major strain of monotheism. On the other hand, this description holds regardless of any more specific properties incorporated in various definitions of God.
DUALISM: REALITY TORN IN TWO
In mainstream social and economic theory, a human being is understood as a mechanistic automaton driven by individual self-interest and governed by impersonal laws of nature and rules of behaviorism. Human automata are subject to conditioning on the basis of individual self-interest, which is a function of the individual’s pleasure and happiness, freedom from want, pain, and sadness, and standards of biological fitness including survival and reproduction, all of which inhabit a standardized economy with a monetary metric. Man is thus simplistically viewed as an economic agent subject to monetary control, through centralization of which the entire future of mankind can in principle be mechanistically determined by the calculated pushing of buttons. Obviously, this dualistic view of man represents a complete negation of human dignity and sovereignty, reducing the human race to cattle. It is also incompatible with any kind of religion other than that referred to by Marx as an “opiate of the masses”.
Sound familiar? This is the vision which unites the writings of Schwab, Malleret, and Harari, and by extension the World Economic Forum. This “man as economic agent” is essentially the fundamental unifying model currently shared by the WEF and its globalist affiliate organizations.
Langen then launches into some definitions before describing his alternative.
For present purposes, a “singularity” is a point at which a system must undergo a directional break, jump through a limit, or be redefined in order to survive regardless of how it may evolve before or after. Accordingly, it can be understood as a kind of systemic destiny, an inevitable convergence of possible paths or trajectories of systemic evolution. Paths converge on points, and where such a point marks a sharp change in the smooth overall trajectory of a system, it comprises a kind of systemic “metapoint” which can be seen as marking a systemic mutation or change of inertia. This provides a tentative mathematical conceptualization of “singularity” for social systems.
The related forms of dualism thus far discussed — Cartesian dualism, naturalism, NOMA [the “non-overlapping magisteria” of science and religion], and so on — are opposed to the human need for a coherent spiritual identity. This implies a bifurcation or divergence, a human evolutionary choice between two possible adaptations or destinies respectively corresponding to the anthropic and technological aspects of an impending “singular” transformation. Each possible destiny corresponds to the dominance of one aspect over the other, and may be associated with its own conventional type of singularity.
On one side is the Human Singularity, a mass realization of the expansive spiritual identity of the human species. Basically, this is the mass spiritual awakening that we have been led to expect by, e.g., certain currents in “New Age” thought. The prototype for this kind of singularity is the Omega Point of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, representing an evolutionary terminus and divine spiritual unification event through which mankind, and reality itself, will achieve “Christ-Consciousness” and be forever transformed.
On the other side is the Tech Singularity, seminally formulated by the celebrated mathematician John von Neumann as the approaching juncture at which “technological progress will become incomprehensively rapid and complicated”, prior to which “the ever-accelerating progress of technology … gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity [italicized for emphasis] in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue” (Ulam, 1958). In short, von Neumann foresaw an uncontrollable technological quickening, a sudden acceleration of complexity followed by the transformation (or extinction) of humanity.
Most discussions of the Tech Singularity have been naive to the point of disingenuity, boiling down to starry-eyed encomiums to the power of human intelligence to inventively couple with reality on the physical level of being using technological marvels both real and imagined, including implants, prosthetics, genetic engineering, virtual realities, and above all, a merging of human intelligence with AI. The problem with such discussions is that they seem to inhabit a socioeconomic and political vacuum, whereas in fact, the singularity concept is fraught with worrisome complications involving economic and sociopolitical factors apart from which it cannot be properly evaluated.
The Human and Tech Singularities relate to each other by a kind of duality; the former is extended and spacelike, representing the even distribution of spiritual and intellectual resources over the whole of mankind, while the latter is a compact, pointlike concentration of all resources in the hands of just those who can afford full access to the best and most advanced technology. Being opposed to each other with respect to the distribution of the resources of social evolution, they are also opposed with respect to the structure of society; symmetric distribution of the capacity for effective governance corresponds to a social order based on individual freedom and responsibility, while extreme concentration of the means of governance leads to a centralized, hive-like system at the center of which resides an oligarchic concentration of wealth and power, with increasing scarcity elsewhere due to the addictive, self-reinforcing nature of privilege. (Note that this differs from the usual understanding of individualism, which is ordinarily associated with capitalism and juxtaposed with collectivism; in fact, both capitalism and collectivism, as they are monopolistically practiced on the national and global scales, lead to oligarchy and a loss of individuality for the vast majority of people. A Human Singularity is something else entirely, empowering individuals rather than facilitating their disempowerment.)
The existence of two possible singularities presupposes a point of bifurcation or divergence beyond which the evolutionary momentum of mankind must carry it. Presently, all of the momentum belongs to the Tech Singularity; it is preferred by the financial, corporate, and governmental interests which drive the general economy. This momentum is reinforced by the seeming unavailability of alternatives, i.e., the nonexistence of any other track onto which society might be steered in order to escape an oligarchical AI lockdown. It is one thing for humankind to awaken en masse to its impending enslavement through a seemingly inevitable Tech Singularity; it is quite another to have a superior alternative clearly in view.
In order to reach any alternate destination whatsoever, humanity must understand what has been driving it toward the Tech Singularity. At this point, the reason is clear: the virtually automatic concentration of wealth and power, which has been observed to occur under both capitalism and socialism, fractionates humanity into an overclass and an underclass between which all else is crushed out of existence as though by the jaws of a vise. That is, the top and bottom levels of society become the jaws of a vise which, due to the screwing down of the upper jaw against the anvil-like lower jaw, crushes the middle class and all meaningful competition out of existence, thus normalizing the hive through the economic, physical, and psychological standardization of its drones and workers.
For reasons that should by now be evident, let us call this process a “parasitic divergence” — i.e., an organized divergence of humanity into a parasitic overclass and a relatively impoverished underclass serving as its mind-controlled host, mirroring the gruesome effects of certain obligate parasites on the organisms they attack — and acknowledge that it is driven by the self-reinforcing and therefore accelerating acquisition of wealth, power, and technological control by the rich. Left to run away with itself, this process ultimately leads to a “singular” concentration of wealth and power … a kind of sociopolitical-economic “black hole” that never stops gravitating. As the top jaw of the vise grows smaller, denser, and stronger, the bottom jaw grows larger and weaker; and as human utility becomes increasingly concentrated, every significant increase in the wealth of the overclass translates into a greater amount of misery for the underclass, arbitrarily diminishing the net utility of mankind.
Parasitic divergences have occurred many times in history, but the present one is different. Due to the double whammy of globalization and powerful surveillance and coercion technology, the one now in progress is geographically ubiquitous and quite possibly irreversible. If humanity is to save itself from the insectile, hive-like future associated with a Tech Singularity, the Human Singularity must prevail, empowering mankind to exert sufficient control over the production, distribution, and application of technology to prevent its unlimited oligarchical abuse. To bring this about, it is not enough to merely distribute a cognitive avoidance mechanism out of which the moneyed elite can buy and bribe their way as usual, given the absence of a well-defined alternative direction in which humanity can proceed; rather, an alternative direction must be defined and universally distributed in cognitive and attitudinal form. In short, in order to have a meaningful mass awakening, the content of the awakening must be defined and distributed to the members of humanity, thus immunizing them against parasitic mind control. Because this content must be spiritual, the involvement of religion is unavoidable.
I think that these words and vision speak for themselves. I once again remind that they were first published in 2018. As far as I am concerned, this essay gets the closest to the emergent sense of an alternative future consistent with what many in the medical freedom movement have been groping towards of any that I have ever read.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/two-possible-futures-for-humanity#play
‘With an overwhelming 152-5 majority, a UN committee devoted to world security called on Israel Friday to renounce its nuclear arsenal and put all its nuclear-related sites under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC, or First Committee) resolution, submitted annually by Egypt for years, demands that Israel join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), even though Jerusalem never acknowledged possession of nuclear weapons.
It is “important” that Israel sign onto the NPT “without delay,” agree “not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons,” and accede to IAEA oversight in order to “realiz[e] the goal of universal adherence to the Treaty in the Middle East,” and “as a step toward enhancing peace and security,” the resolution stated.