Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Mamma Mia! The screams of Bolshevik butt-hurt emanating from the press over the election of a “far right” female Prime Minister in Italy are reverberating throughout the hollowed heads of western Libtardia. From the opening paragraph of the Times’ Jason Horowitz whine-a-thon:
“Italy turned a page of European history on Sunday by electing a hard-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni, whose long record of bashing the European Union, international bankers and migrants has sown concern about the nation’s reliability in the Western alliance. Ms. Meloni, the leader of the nationalist Brothers of Italy, a party descended from the remnants of fascism, had led a right-wing coalition to a majority in Parliament, defeating a fractured left.” (emphasis added)
Hmmm. No “hurrahs” for the 45-year-old Giorgia “breaking the glass ceiling” to become the first female Prime Ministerette of macho Italy? Come on now, Whorowitz. This is the type of “historic” fluff you girlie boys usually get all warm and tingly about, is it not? Youse guys had such a hard-on for “strong women” like Killary, the Frumpy Frau of Germany and that trans donkey down in New Zealand. How about a little love for the Italian babe?
Although the success of the “far right” in Sweden’s elections last week came as delightful news, it doesn’t compare to what just occurred in Italy for the simple reason that Italy is one of Europe’s largest states (pop: 60 million) and largest economies. If Italy “turns its back” (or even just turns sideways) on NATO and the EU, the whole house of NWO cards may topple in Europe — exactly as Q had — when the idea of such a thing seemed unimaginable — accurately forecast as far back as 2017. That being said, infertile, ageing, corrupted and factionalized Italy, like Sweden, still may not be salvageable domestically.
I support the idea of women as political leaders (why not). We should acknowledge this, in a democracy, the placing of softer female masks on the face of the big bad “far right” has certain strategic advantages. And as far as we can tell, Signora Meloni — mother of one out-of-wedlock child by her “significant other” — seems solid in both her political and social positions as she is passionate. Meloni’s political activism dates back to her student days and has been what (((they))) would describe as “fascist” — though she seems to have “moderated” (rolling eyes) in recent years.
We’ll let the lady speak for herself — and then you’ll understand why the likes of Mr. Whorowitz are horrified:
* Giorgia Meloni on God, Family & Country:
A question: “Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to simply be perfect consumer slaves.
They attack national identity, they attack religious identity. They attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators — the perfect consumer.
That is the reason why we inspire so much fear. Because we do not want to be numbers. We will defend the value of the human being because every person has a unique genetic code that is unrepeatable… and like it or not, that is sacred.
We will defend God, country, and family. Those things that disgust people so much. We will do it to defend our freedom because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of financial speculators. That is our mission. That is why I came here today.”
Tell it, Giorgia. Tell it! — Good Christian? well, marry the father of your daughter.
As if the hyped-up Broadway Freak Show about a hyped-up villain of history wasn’t “woke” idiotic enough — now comes word that the moronic musical has been duplicated for audiences in occupied Germany.
As if the hyped-up Broadway Freak Show about an equally hyped-up villain of American history — featuring mulatto / Hispanic actors playing the 18th Century Anglo-Saxon founders of the United States — wasn’t “woke” idiotic enough; now comes word that the moronic musical has been duplicated for stupefied audiences in occupied Germany.
From the article’s opening:
“For the last four years, a team of translators has been working with the “Hamilton” creators to develop a German version — The German-speaking cast — most of them black actors, reflecting the show’s defining decision to retell America’s revolutionary origins with the voices of today’s diverse society — is now in the final days of rehearsal.”
Adding insanity to idiocy, we learn that the German cast isn’t merely of mixed race, but straight-up Black instead! Nothing against “people of color” (Me Included) per se, you understand – but come on man! Were it not for its blot-out-Whitey-from-history symbolism, this spectacle would be laughable. You wouldn’t expect to see a blond-haired / blue eyed actor playing the part of Martin Luther King, or Simon Bolivar for example, would you?
This horror in Hamburg does offer us a “teachable moment”to bring the exalted reputation of Alexander Hamilton – the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury – down a few notches. Contrary to the wishes of many of America’s founders, the non-American-born Hamilton (British West Indies) passionately advocated for the establishment of the First Bank of the United States — the privately owned “Fed” of its day. When Hamilton submitted a report to Congress outlining his proposal in 1790, he used the charter of the Bank of England as the model.
Among others, Thomas Jefferson — primary author of the Declaration of Independence and first Secretary of State — feared that a central bank would create a dangerous financial monopoly favoring financiers over plantation owners and family farmers, who tended to be debtors. Jefferson also argued that the Constitution did not grant the government the authority to establish corporations, including a national bank. Despite the contentious opposing voices, Hamilton’s bill cleared Congress and President George Washington signed the bill into law in 1791.
During the young nation’s first “Bank War,” Hamilton had been accused by some of pursuing policies to enrich Jewish financiers overseas (here). When the first subscriptions to the new bank quickly sold out, an editorial in a Philadelphia newspaper fingered “Amsterdam Jews” as among those “bereft of honesty or industry” who would benefit from Hamilton’s bank. (here)
Given Hamilton’s closeness to and gushing admiration for “the usual suspects,” it’s not surprising that he wanted such an institution (a destructive institution which died 20 years later when Congress refused to renew its charter, thus triggering the UK-US war of 1812). As a child, Hamilton, born out of wedlock, was educated in a Jewish school which was run out of a synagogue (here) and learned to speak Hebrew. That fact, combined with his “Danish” stepfather’s Jewish-sounding surname of “Lavien,” has prompted even some Establishment whorestorians to speculate that he may have been raised Jewish. In any event, Alexander “Levine” was not shy about declaring his love and even mystical reverence for “The Tribe.” He once wrote:
“The state and progress of the Jews, from their earliest history to the present time, has been so entirely out of the ordinary course of human affairs, is it not then a fair conclusion, that the cause also is an extraordinary one—in other words, that it is the effect of some great providential plan? The man who will draw this conclusion, will look for the solution in the Bible. He who will not draw it ought to give us another fair solution.”
Hamilton also advocated in favor of Jewish immigration and once argued in a court case:
“Why distrust the evidence of the Jews? Discredit them and you destroy the Christian religion.”
Hamilton made bitter enemies not just because of economic differences; but because he was a sneaky, dishonorable and dirty tactician — an elitist scumbag with both a keen intellect and a legendary “gift of gab” which appeared to have President Washington under its spell at times. Many of Hamilton’s founding contemporaries — including FOUR future Presidents: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison & James Monroe — not only opposed Hamilton’s grand schemes, but they all despised him on a personal level. Though the whorestorians do not dispute this astonishing universal antipathy toward the arrogant bankster; it is seldom mentioned in the modern white-washing (or shall we say, “black-washing”?) of St. Alexander.
Aside from the banksterism, following is a bullet point review of Hamilton’s other most shameful antics:
* Offered to lead soldiers to violently crush the Whiskey Tax Rebellion in Pennsylvania — an idea which Washington refused before resolving the matter peacefully * Slept with another man’s wife (The Maria Reynolds Affair) and later paid off her husband to keep the matter quiet, until it was finally exposed * Circulated nasty pamphlets personally attacking John Adams * Falsely accused Jefferson — who was a Deist — of being an “atheist” * Used a pen name to falsely accuse Jefferson of keeping a Black slave-girl as his concubine — the origin of the Sally Hemmings baby LIE.
As is often the case with these types of characters, they eventually mess with the wrong man. In Hamilton’s case, that would be Jefferson’s sitting Vice President, Aaron Burr.
Burr was running for Governor of New York in 1804 and lost to little known Morgan Lewis. He blamed his loss on a personal smear campaign orchestrated by the great smear-master Hamilton — a Kingmaker of New York politics. In April, the Albany Register published a letter from Dr. Charles D. Cooper to Philip Schuyler, which relayed Hamilton’s judgment that Burr was “a dangerous man and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of government,” and claiming to know of “a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.” It was the word “despicable” that triggered Burr. In June, Burr wrote to Hamilton, seeking a clarification and disavowal of the remark attributed to him. When Hamilton refused, Burr challenged him to a duel — which took place across the Hudson River on July 12, 1804 at Weehawken Heights, New Jersey because there were laws against dueling in New York.
And that, boys and girls was the end of Alexander “Levine” Hamilton.
Finally — after more than one year of steadily rising costs across the entire spectrum of goods and services — a bit of good economic news from “the paper of record.” The criminal debasement of our currency is actually going to “save” us money on our taxes next year! Some astonishingly Orwellian anti-logic, from the article:
“In addition to a big boost to Social Security payments, inflation could help save money on your federal tax bill next year. That’s because the federal government annually adjusts many elements of its complex tax code, including the standard deduction and tax brackets, to reflect inflation and avoid so-called stealth tax increases.
The adjustments also mean you can contribute more next year to retirement savings and other accounts that offer tax breaks, like health savings accounts.
Happy days are here again.
Cheese & crackers! Ms. Ann Carrns — the felonious freelancer who drooled out this demented drivel — ought to be locked up in an insane asylum for spinning the ongoing econo-meltdown into a welcome “tax savings” benefit.
First of all, the upward adjustments of the tax brackets and standard deductions only represent “savings” in terms of numbers, not actual value, which has been lost due to inflation. You see, the IRS, in its infinite graciousness, allows for the fact the dollar isn’t what is used to be yesterday — and will not in the near future be what it is today either. Indeed, that’s why the adjustments were put in place in the first place, as Carrns herself does explain:
“If the bracket boundaries weren’t periodically adjusted for inflation, more of your income would move into a higher bracket, increasing your tax bill.”
In other words, you’ll be paying “less” only because you are, in reality, earning less in terms of purchasing power.
Secondly, the various adjustments for inflation NEVER keep pace with the understated (rigged) rate of inflation. To therefore describe these adjustments as “savings” — or even break-even — is just as fallacious as referring to a 5% nominal salary increase — when under-reported inflation is at 10% annual — as a “pay raise.” It’s not.
More “good news” from Crazy Carrns:
“The adjustments also mean you can contribute more next year to retirement savings and other accounts that offer tax breaks, like health savings accounts.”
Again, the “more” contributions in this case only means more nominal dollars — not more actual value.
The most exasperating element of this horrible piece of financial propaganda comes in the form of an “Inflation F.A.Q. (Frequently Asked Questions) box — inserted into the body of the article — followed by a reply that is so incomplete that it raises more questions than it answers:
How insulting! Even the dullest of the befuddled boobs in the dimmest corner of the overlapping tyrannical Kingdoms of Normiedom & Libtardia already knows WHAT inflation is: It is a widespread rise in prices. But the High Priests at “the paper of record” NEVER tell the worshipers about the true HOW and WHY of inflation — even though those questions are just as easy to define as the “what.”
Here it is — in a nutshell:
“Inflation is the loss of purchasing power over time caused by excessive expansion (legalized counterfeiting) of the money supply — injected into the economy at unpayable compounding interest (usury) — relative to the amount of goods and services available. The debt virus is injected partly through the banking system in the form of loans (out of nothing) to businesses and consumers; and partly through the Central Bank’s purchase (also with nothing) of government bonds to fund deficits. The ever increasing amounts of debt money chasing a more stable supply of goods debases the value of all existing currency, thus increasing prices.”
There — in just 100 words that an 10-year old, or even a “college educated” economist can digest. Now why can’t the esteemed, and, we presume, very well-shekeled, Ms. Carrns do that for her readers? Hmmm? Truth simplifies. Liars (and idiots) complicate.
Adding insult to idiocy, Ms. Carrns seems to hold a very “inflated” (no pun intended) opinion of her analytical and reporting capabilities. From her Stinked-In bio:
“I’m a talented journalist covering personal finance, including health care, retirement, college saving, taxes and more. I excel at making complex topics understandable for readers. My column, “Your Money Adviser,” appears weekly in The New York Times.”
The most severely cracked up of crackpots always think so highly of themselves, and feel compelled to share that opinion with us — ever notice that?
Billionaire George Soros is that rare megalomaniac who not only believes he’s a god but revels in behaving like one. “It’s a sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” he once boasted to The Independent.
This god complex, combined with his downright amorality and bizarre ideas about society, makes the 92-year-old extremely dangerous to democracies, especially America.
Early in the book, Palumbo highlights Soros’s amorality, planted perhaps when his Hungarian Jewish family assumed Christian identities and collaborated with the invading Nazis. The teenage Soros accompanied his phony godfather, who inventoried properties seized from Jewish families sent to concentration camps. Yet, he says he feels no guilt, only detachment.
“I was only a spectator; the property was being taken away. I had no role in taking away that property. So, I had no sense of guilt,” he said in a 1998 interview on 60 Minutes. He likened his actions then to his playing the markets later. “In a funny way,” he said, “it’s just like in the markets – that if I weren’t there – of course, I wasn’t doing it – but somebody else would – would be taking it away anyhow.” He recounts that period as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”
Besides hubris and amorality, two major ideas drive Soros. He has a personal theory of ‘reflexivity’ and the philosophy of Karl Popper, his guru at the London School of Economics (LSE).
Both have inbuilt ironies. While ‘reflexivity’ might be just an eccentric speculator’s hobby horse, Popper’s ideas, riding on Soros’s mind and money, could lead the free world into an anarchist-leftist hell.
Simply put, reflexivity says the world is very complex, so humans use perceptual shortcuts like generalizations, dichotomies, metaphors, and decision rules. These, in turn, affect reality via the changes they cause in human behavior.
Soros believes that, guided by this concept, he has gamed the markets by recognizing when perception and reality are at enough variance for betting big.
Like all ‘systems’ to beat the casino, this is humbug and hubris, for it posits someone immune to the perceptual shortcomings that, by the premise, afflict everyone. But every successful speculator’s theorizing gains some indulgence, never mind the informants and networks he’ll never mention. Nor is Soros innocent of insider trading, either.
That is Soros’s business. What should worry us is his obsession with implementing Popper’s ideas. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper propounded that no single philosophy possesses the truth, no society is superior to another, and ‘closed’ cultures are built on taboos and a single version of reality. In Soros’s words, in ‘open’ cultures, “nobody has a monopoly on the truth; a society which is not dominated by the state or any particular ideology, where minorities and minority opinions are respected.”
This may seem idealistic. But, quoting Eduardo Andino of Philanthropy Daily, Palumbo points out that, if groups must let go of “their truth,” the open society becomes the overarching truth by which its members must live, leaving no diversity. Witness how conservatives and others resisting the left’s anarchic impulses are denounced as authoritarian.
Much of that is because Soros funded leftist causes like Antifa, and BLM through his Open Society Foundation (OSF), the NGO he set up with $32 billion to spend on disruption. He is the largest donor in American politics, spending billions on political projects in 37 countries through over 50,000 grants. With sociopathic aplomb, he has destabilized and toppled governments, broken currencies, and attacked Western democracies and institutions, all in the name of freedom, rights, and equity.
Palumbo calls Soros a “Schrodinger’s meddler,” both denying and boasting about his activities. When President Eduard Shevardnadze’s government fell in 2003, Soros said it was the Georgian people’s will, and he had nothing to do with it. Months later, he told the New York Times: “I’m delighted by what happened in Georgia, and I take great pride in having contributed to it.”
Soros’s initial projects involved anti-communist activities in Poland, ousting a popularly elected president in Ukraine, and anti-Gorbachev interventions in Russia. The last denied Russians, emerging from 70 years of communism, any chance of economic freedom. As a one-size-fits-all globalist, he sees the European Union as “the embodiment of the idea of the open society,” where like-minded states surrender their sovereignty for the common good.
But Soros’s biggest mission is America’s downfall, which he considers the biggest impediment to an open society. He entered American presidential politics in 2003, opposing George W. Bush and the war on terrorism after 9/11. He started numerous left-wing organizations to influence America’s social fabric. As tax-exempt groups, they receive unlimited funds and use them to influence elections.
Using his hold on the media, universities, and the White House, Soros has been able to push his ideas on racism; ecology and conservation; welfare for illegals; legalizing drugs; going soft on crime; automatic voter registration; canceling student; housing; and medical debt; and cutting military budgets.
Equally, he has pushed socialist agendas, such as increasing government dependency, unionizing all jobs, and advancing racial and gender diversity. This may seem unusual coming from someone who made billions in the markets, but it’s a potent strategy to destroy the American ideals of competition, merit, and excellence.
In 2015, Soros began backing state prosecutors who want to dismantle the criminal justice system, portraying it – and America itself – as systemically racist.
According to him, one should “blame the system, not the criminal, who is the real victim.” Around the time BLM was growing, he spent hundreds of millions to back candidates who were anti “law and order,” weak on crime, tough on gun control, and opposed to cash bail.
After donating heavily to Barack Obama’s Senate and presidential races and pouring money into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Soros spent even more to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election. He told the World Economic Forum that Trump’s America First agenda ran counter to the globalist project.
While criticizing big money’s influence in politics, he injected $81 million (including $70 million of his own) through the Democracy PAC. Using the pandemic as an excuse, his funding vehicles sought to increase vote-by-mail, expanding opportunities for vote tampering and harvesting.
He war-gamed election outcomes and, visualizing a “despotic” Trump’s refusal to leave office, started the Transition Integrity Project, a backup plan of civil disobedience and revolutionary protests. He infiltrated the Biden-Harris team even before it took office by raising $20 million for transition teams of officials to prepare the duo to “hit the ground running” on Day One.
The same year, Soros budgeted over $63 million to further progressivism in higher education, beginning with the Central European University (CEU) in his native Hungary. He also brought together world leaders and Harvard liberals to create a “multilateral economic system where America is not dominant.”
When Victor Orban forced him out of Hungary for supporting mass refugee resettlement in Europe, he turned to funding universities in America and other countries.
Palumbo’s painstakingly researched book also traces Soros’s hand in the media, including journalism schools – which is why they push his pet issues and put out “fact checks” to deny his infamous past.
Thus, he can shape narratives and target those who don’t match his global vision. As he angles to perpetuate his influence beyond the grave, through his son Alexander, his second wife Susan Weber, and other acolytes, free societies worldwide should brace for a long battle.
Most people think that George Orwell was writing about, and against, totalitarianism – especially when they encounter him through the prism of his great dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
This view of Orwell is not wrong, but it can miss something. For Orwell was concerned above all about the particular threat posed by totalitarianism to words and language. He was concerned about the threat it posed to our ability to think and speak freely and truthfully. About the threat it posed to our freedom.
He saw, clearly and vividly, that to lose control of words is to lose control of meaning. That is what frightened him about the totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia – these regimes wanted to control the very linguistic substance of thought itself.
And that is why Orwell continues to speak to us so powerfully today. Because words, language and meaning are under threat once more.
Totalitarianism in Orwell’s time
The totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union represented something new and frightening for Orwell. Authoritarian dictatorships, in which power was wielded unaccountably and arbitrarily, had existed before, of course. But what made the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century different was the extent to which they demanded every individual’s complete subservience to the state. They sought to abolish the very basis of individual freedom and autonomy. They wanted to use dictatorial powers to socially engineer the human soul itself, changing and shaping how people think and behave.
Totalitarian regimes set about breaking up clubs, trade unions and other voluntary associations. They were effectively dismantling those areas of social and political life in which people were able to freely and spontaneously associate. The spaces, that is, in which local and national culture develops free of the state and officialdom. These cultural spaces were always tremendously important to Orwell. As he put it in his 1941 essay, ‘England Your England’: ‘All the culture that is most truly native centres round things which even when they are communal are not official – the pub, the football match, the back garden, the fireside and the “nice cup of tea”.’
Totalitarianism may have reached its horrifying zenith in Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR. But Orwell was worried about its effect in the West, too. He was concerned about the Sovietisation of Europe through the increasingly prominent and powerful Stalinist Communist Parties. He was also worried about what he saw as Britain’s leftwing ‘Europeanised intelligentsia’, which, like the Communist Parties of Western Europe, seemed to worship state power, particularly in the supranational form of the USSR. And he was concerned above all about the emergence of the totalitarian mindset, and the attempt to re-engineer the deep structures of mind and feeling that lie at the heart of autonomy and liberty.
Orwell could see this mindset flourishing among Britain’s intellectual elite, from the eugenics and top-down socialism of Fabians, like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and HG Wells, to the broader technocratic impulses of the intelligentsia in general. They wanted to remake people ‘for their own good’, or for the benefit of the race or state power. They therefore saw it as desirable to force people to conform to certain prescribed behaviours and attitudes. This threatened the everyday freedom of people who wanted, as Orwell put it, ‘the liberty to have a home of your own, to do what you like in your spare time, to choose your own amusements instead of having them chosen for you from above’.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, this new intellectual elite started to gain ascendancy. It was effectively a clerisy – a cultural and ruling elite defined by its academic achievements. It had been forged through higher education and academia rather than through traditional forms of privilege and wealth, such as public schools.
Orwell was naturally predisposed against this emergent clerisy. He may have attended Eton, but that’s where Orwell’s education stopped. He was not part of the clerisy’s world. He was not an academic writer, nor did he position himself as such. On the contrary, he saw himself as a popular writer, addressing a broad, non-university-educated audience.
Moreover, Orwell’s antipathy towards this new elite type was long-standing. He had bristled against the rigidity and pomposity of imperial officialdom as a minor colonial police official in Burma between 1922 and 1927. And he had always battled against the top-down socialist great and good, and much of academia, too, who were often very much hand in glove with the Stalinised left.
The hostility was mutual. Indeed, it accounts for the disdain that many academics and their fellow travellers continue to display towards Orwell today.
The importance of words
Nowadays we are all too familiar with this university-educated ruling caste, and its desire to control words and meaning. Just think, for example, of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have turned ‘fascism’ from a historically specific phenomenon into a pejorative that has lost all meaning, to be used to describe anything from Brexit to Boris Johnson’s Tory government – a process Orwell saw beginning with the Stalinist practice of calling Spanish democratic revolutionaries ‘Trotsky-fascists’ (which he documented in Homage to Catalonia (1938)).
Or think of the way in which our cultural and educational elites have transformed the very meanings of the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’, divesting them of any connection to biological reality. Orwell would not have been surprised by this development. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, he shows how the totalitarian state and its intellectuals will try to suppress real facts, and even natural laws, if they diverge from their worldview. Through exerting power over ideas, they seek to shape reality. ‘Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together in new shapes of your own choosing’, says O’Brien, the sinister party intellectual. ‘We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull… You must get rid of these 19th-century ideas about the laws of nature.’
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the totalitarian regime tries to subject history to similar manipulation. As anti-hero Winston Smith tells his lover, Julia:
‘Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.’
As Orwell wrote elsewhere, ‘the historian believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned.’
This totalitarian approach to history is dominant today, from the New York Times’ 1619 Project to statue-toppling. History is something to be erased or conjured up or reshaped as a moral lesson for today. It is used to demonstrate the rectitude of the contemporary establishment.
But it is language that is central to Orwell’s analysis of this form of intellectual manipulation and thought-control. Take ‘Ingsoc’, the philosophy that the regime follows and enforces through the linguistic system of Newspeak. Newspeak is more than mere censorship. It is an attempt to make certain ideas – freedom, autonomy and so on – actually unthinkable or impossible. It is an attempt to eliminate the very possibility of dissent (or ‘thoughtcrime’).
As Syme, who is working on a Newspeak dictionary, tells Winston Smith:
‘The whole aim… is to narrow the range of thought. In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller… Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’
The parallels between Orwell’s nightmarish vision of totalitarianism and the totalitarian mindset of today, in which language is policed and controlled, should not be overstated. In the dystopia of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the project of eliminating freedom and dissent, as in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, was backed up by a brutal, murderous secret police. There is little of that in our societies today – people are not forcibly silenced or disappeared.
However, they are cancelled, pushed out of their jobs, and sometimes even arrested by the police for what amounts to thoughtcrime. And many more people simply self-censor out of fear of saying the ‘wrong’ thing. Orwell’s concern that words could be erased or their meaning altered, and thought controlled, is not being realised in an openly dictatorial manner. No, it’s being achieved through a creeping cultural and intellectual conformism.
The intellectual turn against freedom
But then that was always Orwell’s worry – that intellectuals giving up on freedom would allow a Big Brother Britain to flourish. As he saw it in The Prevention of Literature (1946), the biggest danger to freedom of speech and thought came not from the threat of dictatorship (which was receding by then) but from intellectuals giving up on freedom, or worse, seeing it as an obstacle to the realisation of their worldview.
Interestingly, his concerns about an intellectual betrayal of freedom were reinforced by a 1944 meeting of the anti-censorship organisation, English PEN. Attending an event to mark the 300th anniversary of Milton’s Areopagitica, Milton’s famous 1644 speech making the case for the ‘Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing’, Orwell noted that many of the left-wing intellectuals present were unwilling to criticise Soviet Russia or wartime censorship. Indeed, they had become profoundly indifferent or hostile to the question of political liberty and press freedom.
‘In England, the immediate enemies of truthfulness, and hence of freedom of thought, are the press lords, the film magnates, and the bureaucrats’, Orwell wrote, ‘but that on a long view the weakening of the desire for liberty among the intellectuals themselves is the most serious symptom of all’.
Orwell was concerned by the increasing popularity among influential left-wing intellectuals of ‘the much more tenable and dangerous proposition that freedom is undesirable and that intellectual honesty is a form of anti-social selfishness’. The exercise of freedom of speech and thought, the willingness to speak truth to power, was even then becoming seen as something to be frowned upon, a selfish, even elitist act.
An individual speaking freely and honestly, wrote Orwell, is ‘accused of either wanting to shut himself up in an ivory tower, or of making an exhibitionist display of his own personality, or of resisting the inevitable current of history in an attempt to cling to unjustified privilege’.
These are insights which have stood the test of time. Just think of the imprecations against those who challenge the consensus. They are dismissed as ‘contrarians’ and accused of selfishly upsetting people.
And worst of all, think of the way free speech is damned as the right of the privileged. This is possibly one of the greatest lies of our age. Free speech does not support privilege. We all have the capacity to speak, write, think and argue. We might not, as individuals or small groups, have the platforms of a press baron or the BBC. But it is only through our freedom to speak freely that we can challenge those with greater power.
Orwell is everywhere today. He is taught in schools and his ideas and phrases are part of our common culture. But his value and importance to us lies in his defence of freedom, especially the freedom to speak and write.
Of course, it is attacked today as an expression of privilege and of bigotry. Author and commentator Will Self cited ‘Politics and the English Language’ in a 2014 BBC Radio 4 show as proof that Orwell was an ‘authoritarian elitist’. He said: ‘Reading Orwell at his most lucid you can have the distinct impression he’s saying these things, in precisely this way, because he knows that you – and you alone – are exactly the sort of person who’s sufficiently intelligent to comprehend the very essence of what he’s trying to communicate. It’s this the mediocrity-loving English masses respond to – the talented dog-whistler calling them to chow down on a big bowl of conformity.’
Lionel Trilling, another writer and thinker, made a similar point to Self, but in a far more insightful, enlightening way. ‘[Orwell] liberates us’, he wrote in 1952:
‘He tells us that we can understand our political and social life merely by looking around us, he frees us from the need for the inside dope. He implies that our job is not to be intellectual, certainly not to be intellectual in this fashion or that, but merely to be intelligent according to our lights – he restores the old sense of the democracy of the mind, releasing us from the belief that the mind can work only in a technical, professional way and that it must work competitively. He has the effect of making us believe that we may become full members of the society of thinking men. That is why he is a figure for us.’
Orwell should be a figure for us, too – in our battle to restore the democracy of the mind and resist the totalitarian mindset of today. But this will require having the courage of our convictions and our words, as he so often did himself. As he put it in The Prevention of Literature, ‘To write in plain vigorous language one has to think fearlessly’. That Orwell did precisely that was a testament to his belief in the public just as much as his belief in himself. He sets an example and a challenge to us all.
Castillo de San Felipe del Morro is a fort that sits majestically on the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico in the capital city of San Juan. In 1983, the fort was declared a world heritage site by the United Nations for its historical significance and for its astounding military engineering of “stout walls, carefully planned steps, and ramps for moving men and artillery.” Millions of tourists converge on this site annually to learn about its historical importance in the region; but, some of these tourists also visit because they have heard about the alleged hauntings that occur at the fort.
History of San Juan and Its Fort
When explorers arrived in the Americas from Spain, they would settle an area, claiming it for the Spanish empire. Puerto Rico was one of the first islands discovered in the New World by Genoese captain, Christopher Columbus in 1493. It was later settled in 1508 by Juan Ponce de Leon who enslaved the native population of Taino Indians under the repartimiento system in order to extract the gold from the area and establish a gold mining colony. Disease and famine caused the native population to dwindle drastically and as a result, in 1513 enslaved Africans were brought to the colony to mine and extract the gold under a new less repressive system known as the encomienda system.
Within a few decades, Puerto Rico became one of the wealthiest seaports in the Americas making it a target for other European nations exploring the New World. Not only was it a rich seaport, its strategic location in the Caribbean made it a sought-after piece of land because whoever owned this position could gain a foothold in the entire western world. The Spanish were aware of this vulnerability and thus made Puerto Rico’s coast one of the most densely fortified in the region.
Work began on Castillo de San Felipe del Morro in the late 1530s to protect the Spanish conquistadors’ lands from attacks by seafaring enemies and the threat of pirates. The fort was named in honor of Philip II of Spain, but it is Charles V of Spain who ordered engineers Juan de Tejada and Juan Bautista Antonelli to design the fort. Once it was complete, the fort would prove its worth when Britain challenged its stronghold in 1595 under the leadership of Sir Francis Drake. Spanish settlers staved off his attack by shooting a cannonball into Drake’s ship causing his retreat.
The British Crown’s desire to acquire Spanish lands did not end with Drake’s defeat. George Clifford, the 3 rd Earl of Cumberland, invaded Puerto Rico but instead of invading through the islet of Old San Juan as Drake had unsuccessfully done, he staged a land attack in which he was successful in overtaking the city.
Earl of Cumberland’s Successful Takeover and His Ultimate Demise
It would seem that the Earl of Cumberland’s successful invasion in 1598 would spell victory for the British in the newly discovered territory. Unfortunately, the food that they had relied on to survive was contaminated by Puerto Rico’s ravaging summer heat. George, along with many of his soldiers fell victim to a foodborne illness which triggered dysentery, an intestinal infection that causes fever, abdominal pain, and bloody diarrhea. This forced George and his crew to leave the island and return to Britain; however, they didn’t leave empty-handed. Before heading back to Britain, they sacked the city and took anything of value that they could.
The Dutch Invasion of San Juan
As if the looming threat of the British wasn’t enough, the Spanish found themselves facing a new threat from the Dutch a few decades after the Earl of Cumberland’s invasion. Boudewijn Hendricksz decided to use George’s military action of overland invasion to achieve his aim of taking San Juan from the Spanish. Boudewijn may have assumed that this would be an easy defeat, but to his dismay, his strategy failed. His military forces sacked the city, but they weren’t able to capture it as he had planned.
The United States’ Takeover
Since the Spanish arrived in the 1500s, they were able to stave off an invasion from the British and the Dutch who coveted this land for its strategic location in the Caribbean and its gold. Although the British and the Dutch weren’t successful, the United States would become the only foreign invader to successfully take over the fort and the entire country during the Spanish-American War. The war ended with the Treaty of Paris turning Puerto Rico and several other islands over to the United States.
Ghosts Invade El Morro
The US may have been the only successful invader to take over El Morro Fort in Puerto Rico. However, according to legend, several ghosts have made the fort their home, also. One such ghost that seems to be famous at the fort is the ghost known as the lady in white. This apparition is usually seen near a lighthouse known as La Garita del Diablo or the Devil’s Watchtower. Her apparition is usually seen floating along the ramparts.
Another legend is the legend of the ghost soldier that vanished . When Spanish soldiers manned the fort, they would call out the words “Alerta” or “Alert” which was their way of making sure that the soldiers were awake and watching over the fort. When one soldier didn’t hear a response, he went into the Garita (watchtower) to check on the soldier that was supposed to be stationed there. Upon arrival, the room was empty. The missing ghost soldier still haunts the fort.
Aside from a ghost sighting or two, some say that they can hear footsteps of soldiers, yellow orbs floating around, or wailing sounds. Some have even reported feeling dizzy or queasy in certain areas near the fort. Whether visiting for historical reasons or to explore the paranormal, Castillo de San Felipe del Morro remains one of the marvels of the Americas linking the architecture of old medieval Spain to the modern world.
Lieutenant Colonel Teófilo Marxuach, (July 28, 1877 – November 8, 1939), was the person who ordered the first shots fired in World War I (From El Morro) on behalf of the United States on an armed German supply ship trying to force its way out of the San Juan Bay on March 21, 1915.
Puerto Rico is a unique island with stunning scenery as well as a complex history and fascinating culture. It was part of the Spanish Empire for approximately 400 years and there are many reminders of the long Spanish occupation of the island, the most impressive of which is the fort of San Cristóbal, located in the capital of San Juan. This is regarded as the biggest military fortress in all the Americas and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
The Spanish History of Castillo San Cristóbal
In 1521, the Spanish founded the present-day city of San Juan, not long after Columbus reached the Americas, and they established a series of fortifications to protect their new settlement. It was originally known as Puerto Rico and ultimately it gave its name to the entire island.
Over time the settlement became known as San Juan. Its population grew and it prospered which attracted the attention of pirates. In 1595, the English under Sir Francis Drake attacked San Juan and destroyed some of its fortifications. Not long after, in 1598, the town was occupied and sacked by the English once again. The Spanish garrison was besieged in the local fort and they were eventually forced to surrender. Later, in 1628 the Dutch attacked San Juan from the landward side and the town was once again badly damaged. After this attack the Spanish colonial government decided that San Juan needed to be better defended and Castillo San Cristóbal was established.
The Construction of Castillo San Cristóbal
The entire construction took place over a period of 150 years. The Spanish governor built a small redoubt or fort on the hill known as San Cristóbal (Saint Christopher). Along with the fort San Felipe del Morro , it was designed to protect San Juan.
In the 1760s, San Cristóbal was greatly expanded to protect the growing city. The chief engineers of the project were Tomás O’Daly and Juan Francisco Mestre. The construction, a vast undertaking, took place between 1766 and 1783.
Not long after it was completed, the stronghold was badly damaged by an earthquake but was quickly repaired. The fort was key to the successful defense of San Juan in 1787 when the Spanish and Puerto Rican garrison repelled another English attack.
During the Spanish American War, the fortress came under attack from US warships. San Cristóbal’s guns fought a day-long battle with the USS Yale before surrendering, and Puerto Rico became a US territory in 1898. It was later occupied by the American army during WWI and they built observation towers at the site during WWII.
What to See at Castillo San Cristóbal?
A steep ramp leads to the gates of the historic fortress as San Cristóbal overlooks the sea and San Juan. The site is a large one and it stretches over several hectares. It was modeled on the European forts designed by Vauban, a French military engineer who’s considered to be a genius.
San Cristóbal, like other Vauban-inspired forts, is in the form of a hexagon, with a bastion or stronghold at every corner. This was to create dead-zones around the fortress so that the gunners on the walls had a clean line of fire.
The walls of the fortress are still intact and there are many observation posts, known as guerites, along the walls. They hang over the walls of the fortress and the oldest one dates from 1634. One of the posts, known as the Devils guerites, is believed to be haunted.
Other features of the fortress are cannons, a moat, and various bunkers. There is an impressive square at the heart of the fortress. The fortress also has some well-preserved examples of 19th century coastal artillery.
The original builders installed a vast cistern in the fortress which is used to irrigate the surrounding area which is a national park. A large maze-like tunnel complex under the stronghold, built to make it more difficult for attackers to seize the site, was used for storage and communications.
Getting to Castillo San Cristóbal
San Cristóbal is not far from San Juan. An entrance fee is required to visit, and organized tours are available. While some areas of the walls are not open to the public, nearly all the complex can be visited. There is a small museum with exhibitions from the long and dramatic history of San Cristóbal which is situated in beautiful parklands. A range of accommodation is available nearby.
One warm weekend in October of 2020, three impeccably credentialed epidemiologists—Jayanta Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta, and Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard Universities respectively—gathered with a few journalists, writers, and economists at an estate in the Berkshires where the American Institute for Economic Research had brought together critics of lockdowns and other COVID-related government restrictions. On Sunday morning shortly before the guests departed, the scientists encapsulated their views—that lockdowns do more harm than good, and that resources should be devoted to protecting the vulnerable rather than shutting society down—in a joint communique dubbed the “Great Barrington Declaration,” after the town in which it was written.
The declaration began circulating on social media and rapidly garnered signatures, including from other highly credentialed scientists. Most mainstream news outlets and the scientists they chose to quote denounced the declaration in no uncertain terms. When contacted by reporters, Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins of the NIH publicly and vociferously repudiated the “dangerous” declaration, smearing the scientists—all generally considered to be at the top of their fields—as “fringe epidemiologists.” Over the next several months, the three scientists faced a barrage of condemnation: They were called eugenicists and anti-vaxxers; it was falsely asserted that they were “Koch-funded” and that they had written the declaration for financial gain. Attacks on the Great Barrington signatories proliferated throughout social media and in the pages of The New York Times and Guardian.
Yet emails obtained pursuant to a FOIA request later revealed that these attacks were not the products of an independent objective news-gathering process of the type that publications like the Times and the Guardian still like to advertise. Rather, they were the fruits of an aggressive attempt to shape the news by the same government officials whose policies the epidemiologists had criticized. Emails between Fauci and Collins revealed that the two officials had worked together and with media outlets as various as Wired and TheNation to orchestrate a “takedown” of the declaration.
Nor did the targeting of the scientists stop with the bureaucrats they had implicitly criticized. Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff soon learned that their declaration was being heavily censored on social media to prevent their scientific opinions from reaching the public. Kulldorff—then the most active of the three online—soon began to experience censorship of his own social media posts. For example, Twitter censored one of Kulldorff’s tweets asserting that:
“Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older, higher-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Not children.”
Posts on Kulldorff’s Twitter and LinkedIn criticizing mask and vaccine mandates were labeled misleading or removed entirely. In March of 2021, YouTube took down a video depicting a roundtable discussion that Bhattacharya, Gupta, Kulldorff, and Dr. Scott Atlas had with Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, in which the participants critiqued mask and vaccine mandates.
Because of this censorship, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are now plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), which is representing them and two other individuals, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines. The plaintiffs allege that the Biden administration and a number of federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them and others for criticizing the government’s COVID policies. In doing so, the Biden administration and relevant agencies had turned any ostensible private action by the social media companies into state action, in violation of the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court has long recognized and Justice Thomas explained in a concurring opinion just last year, “[t]he government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”
Federal district courts have recently dismissed similar cases on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove state action. According to those judges, public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkasthreatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so, still did not suffice to establish that the plaintiffs were censored on social media due to government action. Put another way, the judges declined to take the government at its word. But the Missouri judge reached a different conclusion, determining there was enough evidence in the record to infer that the government was involved in social media censorship, granting the plaintiffs’ request for discovery at the preliminary injunction stage.
The Missouri documents, along with some obtained through discovery in Berenson v. Twitterand a FOIA request by America First Legal, expose the extent of the administration’s appropriation of big tech to effect a vast and unprecedented regime of viewpoint-based censorship on the information that most Americans see, hear and otherwise consume. At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
Correspondence publicized in Missouri further corroborates the theory that the companies dramatically increased censorship under duress from the government, strengthening the First Amendment claim. For example, shortly after President Biden asserted in July of 2021 that Facebook (Meta) was “killing people” by permitting “misinformation” about COVID vaccines to percolate, an executive from the company contacted the surgeon general to appease the White House. In a text message to Murthy, the executive acknowledged that the “FB team” was “feeling a little aggrieved” as “it’s not great to be accused of killing people,” while he sought to “de-escalate and work together collaboratively.” These are not the words of a person who is acting freely; to the contrary, they denote the mindset of someone who considers himself subordinate to, and subject to punishment by, a superior. Another text, exchanged between Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and another CISA employee who now works at Microsoft, reads: “Platforms have got to get more comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain.” This is another incontrovertible piece of evidence that social media companies are censoring content under duress from the government, and not due to their directors’ own ideas of the corporate or common good.
Further, emails expressly establish that the social media companies intensified censorship efforts and removed particular individuals from their platforms in response to the government’s demands. Just a week after President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” the Meta executive mentioned above wrote the surgeon general an email telling him, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken further to address the ‘disinfo dozen’: we removed 17 additional Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts tied to [them].” About a month later, the same executive informed Murthy that Meta intended to expand its COVID policies to “further reduce the spread of potentially harmful content” and that the company was “increasing the strength of our demotions for COVID and vaccine-related content.”
Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and a prominent critic of government-imposed COVID restrictions, has publicized internal Twitter communications he obtained through discovery in his own lawsuit showing that high-ranking members of the Biden administration, including White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor Andrew Slavitt, had pushed Twitter to permanently suspend him from the platform. In messages from April 2021, a Twitter employee noted that a meeting with the White House had gone relatively well, though the company’s representatives had fielded “one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” to which “mercifully we had answers” (emphasis added).
About two months later, days after Dr. Fauci publicly deemed Berenson a danger, and immediately following the president’s statement that social media companies were “killing people,” and despite assurances from high-ups at the company that his account was in no danger, Twitter permanently suspended Berenson’s account. If this does not qualify as government censorship of an individual based on official disapproval of his viewpoints, it would be difficult to say what might. Berenson was reinstated on Twitter in July 2022 as part of the settlement in his lawsuit.
In 1963, the Supreme Court, deciding Bantam Books v. Sullivan, held that “public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against” booksellers who carried materials containing obscenity could constitute a First Amendment violation. The same reasoning should apply to the Biden administration campaign to pressure tech companies into enforcing its preferred viewpoints.
The question of how the Biden administration has succeeded in jawboning big tech into observing its strictures is not particularly difficult to answer. Tech companies, many of which hold monopoly positions in their markets, have long feared and resisted government regulation. Unquestionably—and as explicitly revealed by the text message exchanged between Murthy and the Twitter executive—the prospect of being held liable for COVID deaths is an alarming one. Just like the booksellers in Bantam, social media platforms undoubtedly “do not lightly disregard” such possible consequences, as Twitter’s use of the term “mercifully” indicates.
It remains to be seen whether Bhattacharya and Kulldorff will be able to show that Fauci and Collins explicitly ordered tech companies to censor them and their Great Barrington Declaration. More discovery lies ahead, from top White House officials including Dr. Fauci, that may yield evidence of even more direct involvement by the government in preventing Americans from hearing their views. But Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and countless social media users have had their First Amendment rights violated nonetheless.
The government’s involvement in censorship of specific perspectives, and direct role in escalating such censorship, has what is known in First Amendment law as a chilling effect: Fearing the repercussions of articulating certain views, people self-censor by avoiding controversial topics. Countless Americans, including the Missouri plaintiffs, have attested that they do exactly that for fear of losing influential and sometimes lucrative social media accounts, which can contain and convey significant social and intellectual capital.
Moreover, the Supreme Court recognizes that a corollary of the First Amendment right to speak is the right to receive information because “the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender’s First Amendment right to send them.” All Americans have been deprived—by the United States government—of their First Amendment rights to hear the views of Alex Berenson, as well as Drs. Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, and myriad additional people, like the reporters who broke the Hunter Biden laptop story for the New York Post and found themselves denounced as agents of Russian disinformation, who have been censored by social media platforms at the urging of the U.S. government. That deprivation strangled public debate on multiple issues of undeniably public importance. It allowed Fauci, Collins, and various other government actors and agencies, to mislead the public into believing there was ever a scientific consensus on lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. It also arguably influenced the 2020 election.
The administration has achieved public acquiescence to its censorship activities by convincing many Americans that the dissemination of “misinformation” and “disinformation” on social media presents a grave threat to public safety and even national security. Over half a century ago, in his notorious concurrence in New York Times v. United States (in which the Nixon administration sought to prevent the newspaper from printing the Pentagon Papers) Justice Hugo Black rejected the view that the government may invoke such concepts to override the First Amendment: “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment,” he wrote. Justice Black cited a 1937 opinion by Justice Charles Hughes explaining that this approach was woefully misguided: “The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly … that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”
The Founders of our country understood that line-drawing becomes virtually impossible once censorship begins and that the personal views and biases of those doing the censoring will inevitably come into play. Moreover, they recognized that sunlight is the best disinfectant: The cure for bad speech is good speech. The cure for lies, truth. Silencing people does not mean problematic ideas disappear; it only drives their adherents into echo chambers. People who are booted off Twitter, for example, often turn to Gab and Gettr, where they are less likely to encounter challenges to patently false posts claiming, for example, that COVID vaccines are toxic.
Indeed, this case could not illustrate more clearly the First Amendment’s chief purpose, and why the framers of the Constitution did not create an exception for “misinformation.” Government actors are just as prone to bias, hubris, and error as the rest of us. Drs. Fauci and Collins, enamored of newfound fame and basking in self-righteousness, took it upon themselves to suppress debate about the most important subject of the day. Had Americans learned of the Great Barrington Declaration and been given the opportunity to contemplate its ideas, and had scientists like Bhattacharya, Gupta, and Kulldorff been permitted to speak freely, the history of the pandemic era may have unfolded with far less tragedy—and with far less damage to the institutions that are supposed to protect public health.
The made-for-TV spectacle that was the funeral of Queen Lizzie passed a few days ago without the slightest bit of interest to us. I had already “eulogized” “Her Majesty” a week earlier, so there really was no need for further comment. That is, until we learned that the mysterious super-hero who goes by “Q” had crashed the Royal party — or so it seems.
Recall that we had closed our previous piece with the following observation which a reader had alerted us to, and we then duly verified:
“The number of days between Q’s very first post on October 28, 2017 and the Queen’s death is 1776 — the year during which the American colonies declared their independence from the Britain of Queen Elizabeth’s great great great great grandfather, King George III. Coincidence?” The “?” was added after the word “coincidence” because we truly could not answer that question conclusively. But three other strange points of data from the funeral have since settled the matter, at least as far as we’re concerned. Q crashed Lizzy’s funeral. Let’s analyze.
QUEEN CONSORT CAMILLA IN A MASK
Frankly, this woman — like so many other famous personages these days — hasn’t looked quite right in a while. There’s been something intangibly “off” about her look. However, it just wasn’t enough to justify screaming: “Fake!” But now, from the day of the funeral actually, an image of her has emerged in which the same tell-tale mask line on the neck — which “Biden” and “Fauci” had previously manifested — is strikingly clear. It’s posted down below.
“BIDEN” IN THE BACK
At the service held in the historic Westminster Abbey, the alleged President of the United States — affectionately referred to by the NYT as “Joe Biden” — was made to wait for his seat, and then placed waaay in the back, with the potentates of the Turd World — in the 14th row behind the president of Poland! This humiliation of “the leader of the free world” — the head of state of a country which not only has a “special relationship” with the UK, if you believe in fairy tales, helped save Britain from “the Nazis” — was so amusing that Trump jumped all over it, posting on Truth Social:
“This is what’s happened to America in just two short years. No respect! However, a good time for our President to get to know the leaders of certain Third World countries. If I were president, they wouldn’t have sat me back there—and our Country would be much different than it is right now!”
Boys and girls. This unthinkable seating arrangement was NOT by chance. The humiliation of “Biden” at the Cathedral — just like his bizarre bicycle fall, his multi-fall episode while climbing an airplane staircase, his comical handshake with the air, his sudden wandering off while on stage, his falling asleep in conferences, his public farting, his apparent “senility,” his stuttering, his Satanic / Big Brother speech in Philadelphia etc — was clearly scripted, but by whom? Certainly NOT the Windsors!
THE MARK OF “Q”
Reminiscent of the masked hero of the TV / Movie character Show, “Zorro,” who would always carve out a “Z’ somewhere for his tyrannical enemies to see — an image — probably a doctored photo injected into the press — of Lizzie’s flag-draped coffin being carried out of the cathedral revealed the reflection of the letter “Q” on a golden ball. By itself, perhaps coincidental — but combined with all the other weirdness, we take it as a sign that Q not only crashed the funeral — but “he” may have actually engineered the fall of the Windsors. Was this what Q meant when he posted those chess analogies: “Queen protects King” and “Queen before King”?
“Rambostein” Liberated Auschwitz the bloody fictional made-for-normies drama! As even the Holohoaxers acknowledge, the Germans had already abandoned the camp before the Soviets arrived.
No pretext for Sulzberger’s Times to sing the song that never ends about the event that never happened is too trivial. In this case, the death of a 98-year-old Soviet “liberator” of the Bullshwitz concentration camp is enough to merit a longer than usual obituary — because David Dushmanwas like, ya know — such a famous and important personage of world history (rolling eyes sarcastically).
Hours after the Germans had unconditionally surrendered (and were thus rendered voiceless) on May 8, 1945, the “paper of record” ran an uncritical account of a just-released Soviet report of the “horrors” which took place there. Incredibly, it is that specific atrocity propaganda report — pooped out by the commie comedy writers of Stalin’s “Extraordinary State Commission for the Establishment and Investigation of the Atrocities of the German Fascist Invaders and Their Accomplices and the Damage They Caused to Citizens, Collective Farms, Public Organizations, State Enterprises and Institutions of the USSR”(we kid you not, that’s the actual official name of the commission) — which remains the academic foundation of the Holocaust tale until this day.
Let’s dive in into this obituary of Devious Dushman for some Anti-New York Times debunking that will never end about the song that never ends about the event that never happened (like they say it did.)
Times: David Dushman, who as a soldier for the Soviet Union drove his tank through the electric fence surrounding the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz on Jan. 27, 1945,… Rebuttal: Oh the bloody fictional made-for-normies drama! As even the Holohoaxers acknowledge, the Germans had already abandoned the camp before the Soviets arrived. There would have been no need for Dushman to “drive his tank through the electric fence.” The gates of Bullshwitz were wide open!
Times: … died in Munich on Saturday. He was 98. Rebuttal: Such a tragic irony — the Bolshevik invader ended up living in Germany. God only knows how many blonde Berlin “shiksas” he must have raped back in ’45.
Times: Mr. Dushman was a 21-year-old Red Army soldier when he drove his T-34 into the high, electric barbed-wire fence surrounding the Auschwitz death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. Rebuttal: Did anyone, other than Dushman, actually witness this heroic tank assault on Bullshwitz? No matter how many times the writer, Berlin correspondent Melissa Eddy, states that Dushman drove his tank through the electric fence (twice in the text of the article and once again in a picture caption), the story is still implausible and unverifiable.
Times: Approaching the camp, he recalled, he peered through the viewing slit of his tank and was shocked by what he saw. Rebuttal: Oh dear. Get your hip waders on, boys and girls. Here comes the stinky stuff.
Times: “Everywhere there were skeletons,” he told the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung in 2015. “They stumbled from the barracks, sat and lay among the dead. It was horrifying. We threw all of our canned food at them and drove on quickly, to keep chasing the fascists.” Rebuttal: (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) I hope you didn’t hit any of those skeletal Jews and Communists on the head with those cans of food (made in the USA and shipped via Alaska, by the way) that you threw at them, Mr. Dushman.
FLASHBACK / October 2020 Same tank-through-gate and skeletons drama, from the American side:
“World War II Hero Who Drove Tank Through Gate of Dachau Concentration Camp Dies At 95”
“We were facing the front gate at Dachau prison,” Feezel said. “My commander said, ‘Jim, put the tank through that gate.’ So, I have the dubious honor of doing that. And, immediately glancing over at the bodies stacked like cordwood, this young 19-year-old just about lost it.”
Times: By the time Mr. Dushman reached Auschwitz, he had been wounded three times. He said he was one of only 69 men from the 12,000 in his division to survive. Rebuttal: Wow. He was a regular “John Rambostein.” If you say so, Mr. Dushman. We won’t ask for verification of your battlefield heroism. That would be “anti-Semitic ,” dontcha’ know?
Times: More than 1.1 million men, women and children were murdered in the camp… Rebuttal: But the original report issued by the “Extraordinary State Commission,” pumped-up by the Slimes, and cited by “scholars” up until about 1990 said it was 4 million. Oops.
Times: A Russian Jew, Mr. Dushman and his family were familiar with anti-Semitism and state-sanctioned discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union. Rebuttal: You see, even in the Jewish-established Soviet Union, the atheistic anti-Christian “Goy” Communists, like Stalin, never trusted the Trotskyite Jews and turned on them later on. I guess that blows the “anti-Semitism is the product of Christian bigotry” argument out of the water, no?
Times: “My biggest dream and hope for future generations is to live in a world where there is no war,” Dushman (a former fencing coach) said during a 2015 visit to Switzerland. Rebuttal: Well, that’s a noble sentiment, Doucheman. But if you were sincere about that dream, you should have had that talk with some of your “higher brethren” during the living years — the same gang of greasy ghouls that engineered and funded just about every major war since the “Coalition Wars” against Napoleon. But I suspect that when your ilk speaks of “a world where there is no war,” you mean a planetary government lorded over by “the usual suspects.”