The Auto Immune diseases take about four months to begin kicking in. Save that cash influencers. You are going to need it to pay your doctor bills.
No. I will NOT be getting the shot.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1388114063545221123?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlabamaJaxx/status/1387881667696734210?s=20
This article was cross posted on my Substack
I am enjoying the new platform Substack and have followed several people in the past few weeks, set up my own platform, and subscribed to Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald just to have the joy of commenting on their work.
I follow several progressive journalists every day on Twitter even though I was recently suspended from Twitter. I enjoy reading lefty journalist Twitter because they are a fun little hive mind constantly linking to each others work. They spend quite a bit of time attempting to debunk various things that I am passionate about, like freebirth and parental sovereignty around health care and education.
Most of them have written an article or two or ten trying to debunk Q. Since I have been a passionate Q blogger these articles and the continuing efforts to paint those of us who followed the drops for three years as violent crazies constitutes much of my dedicated time on the web.
I was interviewed on the phone by Will Sommer a few months ago. He spent the whole time chewing in my ear, which I found to be annoying and really unprofessional. Last night I listened to his report on a podcast about attending the Faith and Freedom conference in Oaklahoma. He reported:
“[It was] sort of a confluence of COVID denialism, QAnon, evangelical Christianity, all this kind of stuff, gathering outside of Tulsa, 4,500 people,” Sommer told co-host Asawin Suebsaeng on this week’s episode of The Daily Beast’s Fever Dreams podcast. “They were ready to throw down and talk about how much they love both Trump and QAnon, no masks, [of course]… I didn’t see a single mask… I, too, had to go sans mask to fit in.”
There were, naturally, “a lot of people who are big deals in Trumpism. I mean, it was Lin Wood, and Michael Flynn, and Sidney Powell. Jim Caviezel, who you may remember from The Passion of the Christ,” Sommer said. “These were people who were fringe in a way, but who still have a lot of sway in the Republican Party… Look, the chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party was at this thing.”
I listened to the first twenty minutes of his Fever Dreams Podcast report to the other guys and it was really interesting hearing his take on what he experienced. As the guys on the cast tried to dismiss and mock what happened, Will kept explaining that five thousand cheering people were attending and they gave standing O’s to any mention of Q or Q issues like Child Trafficking.
Will wrongly talks about QAnon as if it is one entity. There was only Q and then thousands of Anons who engaged in a Socratic back and forth for three years in order to bypass the media gatekeepers, and then those of us who watched the exchange of information in real time. What Will did not theorize during the podcast was how many of us were watching the conference from home, very much aware of what was being said and discussed during Lin Woods Key notes and the casual drop about Adrenochrome by Jim Caviezel.
As Will discussed this particular part of the conference he and the guys he was talking to had a nervousness come into their voices as they were laughing and joking. I heard it and I bet you will hear it to if you listen to the podcast. Child Trafficking isn’t funny. And those of us who were watching from home were weeping, just thinking about the babes who are being saved right now by People like Tim Ballard and the people who are tied to Operation Underground Railroad, who Will also dissed during the podcast. You really can tell so much about a person based on who they hate and mock.
I was disgusted by the tone of the podcast and turned it off after listening for about twenty minutes.
Here is the trailer for the movie that Cazeviel is starring in.
And here is a chat with Tim Ballard himself with Jim. Why is the movie having a hard time being brought to the public?
What made the media go nuts last week was Jim mentioning Adrenochrome and how there would be no forgiveness for those who torture the little ones.
To be clear, there is a group of people who look at children and see food. And they think of babies as a source of energy for them. They will pay any amount of money to use the various products connected with dead children because they believe this is the way for them to experience longevity and health. Babies and children are also used as sacrifice during Satanic Rituals.
So, how does all of this connect to Charlie Warzel being a weenie?
In his recent substack post about censorship he asked if we could do better than simply deplatforming President Trump.
Putting my cards on the table, I think that Facebook is a better place without Donald Trump polluting it with garbage. After his election denial and the events of January 6th, I think there’s an extremely solid case for his permanent ban. But I also agree with Ovadya that we can have a more sophisticated conversation going forward around what we expect of world leaders online and how to make sure to hold them accountable before they destabilize our politics any further. Mostly though, I think conversations like this one are proof that we are still in the early days of understanding and governing the platforms. The limited array of enforcement options we have to balance speech and mitigate harms doesn’t feel adequate. I think we can, eventually, do better.
I responded to his post with this blog post and a short video heckling the crap out of him.
I said in the podcast that some of us have experienced the “friction” that comes with complete deplatforming up to and including having our voices permanently silenced because of being killed.
Charlie thinks the internet will be a better place if certain restrictions are put in place because he finds it a bit unnerving to have to move at the speed of Twitter. And we all know you cannot be a good reporter until the views you espouse have been poll tested and handed to you by your editor to maneuver into a readable article, which will then be massaged by your editor and viewed by a team of attorneys to make certain it is good enough for the Times. And that process takes a full seven days!
So how dare President Trump and his millions of supporters expect a professional like Charlie to have to keep his nose to the grindstone and be involved in real time politics the way that news junkies are. Don’t you know he needs time off to eat, drink, and be merry? And those gatekeeper editors need lots of time to figure out how to spin the news so that Charlie can write something great.
Sorry buddy, if you want to play on this playground you need to be up to speed on the issues of the day, with your opinions and thoughts all ready to roll or YOU will be steam rolled by the pace of the news business and the many nuances of indie journalism. Convincing people to eat their big bowl of blue pills every morning by not going down those Q rabbit holes while throwing rocks at Trump supporters is not going to be very popular, even for someone with your sterling resume’.
So stop being a weenie and encourage the social media companies to give all of us our channels back. I have been banned from Reddit, You Tube, Twitter, and Facebook. I would like to get my channels back. You could atone for your totalitarian instincts by working to help get my web footprint back. Then all Trump supporters and the big guy himself.
There are several million trafficked children who are going to need tender care in the coming months and years, we can all get around that and pitch in to help.
Jenny Marie Hatch
https://www.instagram.com/p/COMq3UNhcWO/?igshid=1h0pauhqrqlm9
Dave Rubin talks to Paul Rossi, a whistleblower and math teacher at Grace Church School, about the NYC private school’s critical race theory curriculum that led him to publish “I Refuse to Stand By While My Students Are Indoctrinated” on the Substack of Bari Weiss.
In this clip Paul reveals the damage being done by critical race theory being forced onto young kids. Paul describes how critical race theory in education had been building slowly for years. Recently he had noticed the damaging effects it was having on his students by making them feel like they couldn’t have opinions that differed from the social justice orthodoxy. Young kids were made to feel guilt and shame over their alleged “white privilege”. He also describes the incident that made him decide to speak up and put his job at risk.
Paul RossiApr 13
I am a teacher at Grace Church High School in Manhattan. Ten years ago, I changed careers when I discovered how rewarding it is to help young people explore the truth and beauty of mathematics. I love my work.
As a teacher, my first obligation is to my students. But right now, my school is asking me to embrace “antiracism” training and pedagogy that I believe is deeply harmful to them and to any person who seeks to nurture the virtues of curiosity, empathy and understanding.
“Antiracist” training sounds righteous, but it is the opposite of truth in advertising. It requires teachers like myself to treat students differently on the basis of race. Furthermore, in order to maintain a united front for our students, teachers at Grace are directed to confine our doubts about this pedagogical framework to conversations with an in-house “Office of Community Engagement” for whom every significant objection leads to a foregone conclusion. Any doubting students are likewise “challenged” to reframe their views to conform to this orthodoxy.
I know that by attaching my name to this I’m risking not only my current job but my career as an educator, since most schools, both public and private, are now captive to this backward ideology. But witnessing the harmful impact it has on children, I can’t stay silent.
My school, like so many others, induces students via shame and sophistry to identify primarily with their race before their individual identities are fully formed. Students are pressured to conform their opinions to those broadly associated with their race and gender and to minimize or dismiss individual experiences that don’t match those assumptions. The morally compromised status of “oppressor” is assigned to one group of students based on their immutable characteristics. In the meantime, dependency, resentment and moral superiority are cultivated in students considered “oppressed.”
All of this is done in the name of “equity,” but it is the opposite of fair. In reality, all of this reinforces the worst impulses we have as human beings: our tendency toward tribalism and sectarianism that a truly liberal education is meant to transcend.
Recently, I raised questions about this ideology at a mandatory, whites-only student and faculty Zoom meeting. (Such racially segregated sessions are now commonplace at my school.) It was a bait-and-switch “self-care” seminar that labelled “objectivity,” “individualism,” “fear of open conflict,” and even “a right to comfort” as characteristics of white supremacy. I doubted that these human attributes — many of them virtues reframed as vices — should be racialized in this way. In the Zoom chat, I also questioned whether one must define oneself in terms of a racial identity at all. My goal was to model for students that they should feel safe to question ideological assertions if they felt moved to do so.
It seemed like my questions broke the ice. Students and even a few teachers offered a broad range of questions and observations. Many students said it was a more productive and substantive discussion than they expected.
However, when my questions were shared outside this forum, violating the school norm of confidentiality, I was informed by the head of the high school that my philosophical challenges had caused “harm” to students, given that these topics were “life and death matters, about people’s flesh and blood and bone.” I was reprimanded for “acting like an independent agent of a set of principles or ideas or beliefs.” And I was told that by doing so, I failed to serve the “greater good and the higher truth.”
He further informed me that I had created “dissonance for vulnerable and unformed thinkers” and “neurological disturbance in students’ beings and systems.” The school’s director of studies added that my remarks could even constitute harassment.
A few days later, the head of school ordered all high school advisors to read a public reprimand of my conduct out loud to every student in the school. It was a surreal experience, walking the halls alone and hearing the words emitting from each classroom: “Events from last week compel us to underscore some aspects of our mission and share some thoughts about our community,” the statement began. “At independent schools, with their history of predominantly white populations, racism colludes with other forms of bias (sexism, classism, ableism and so much more) to undermine our stated ideals, and we must work hard to undo this history.”
Students from low-income families experience culture shock at our school. Racist incidents happen. And bias can influence relationships. All true. But addressing such problems with a call to “undo history” lacks any kind of limiting principle and pairs any allegation of bigotry with a priori guilt. My own contract for next year requires me to “participate in restorative practices designed by the Office of Community Engagement” in order to “heal my relationship with the students of color and other students in my classes.” The details of these practices remain unspecified until I agree to sign.
I asked my uncomfortable questions in the “self-care” meeting because I felt a duty to my students. I wanted to be a voice for the many students of different backgrounds who have approached me over the course of the past several years to express their frustration with indoctrination at our school, but are afraid to speak up.
They report that, in their classes and other discussions, they must never challenge any of the premises of our “antiracist” teachings, which are deeply informed by Critical Race Theory. These concerns are confirmed for me when I attend grade-level and all-school meetings about race or gender issues. There, I witness student after student sticking to a narrow script of acceptable responses. Teachers praise insights when they articulate the existing framework or expand it to apply to novel domains. Meantime, it is common for teachers to exhort students who remain silent that “we really need to hear from you.”
But what does speaking up mean in a context in which white students are asked to interrogate their “white saviorism,” but also “not make their antiracist practice about them”? We are compelling them to tiptoe through a minefield of double-binds. According to the school’s own standard for discursive violence, this constitutes abuse.
Every student at the school must also sign a “Student Life Agreement,” which requires them to aver that “the world as we understand it can be hard and extremely biased,” that they commit to “recognize and acknowledge their biases when we come to school, and interrupt those biases,” and accept that they will be “held accountable should they fall short of the agreement.” A recent faculty email chain received enthusiastic support for recommending that we “‘officially’ flag students” who appear “resistant” to the “culture we are trying to establish.”
When I questioned what form this resistance takes, examples presented by a colleague included “persisting with a colorblind ideology,” “suggesting that we treat everyone with respect,” “a belief in meritocracy,” and “just silence.” In a special assembly in February 2019, our head of school said that the impact of words and images perceived as racist — regardless of intent — is akin to “using a gun or a knife to kill or injure someone.”
Imagine being a young person in this environment. Would you risk voicing your doubts, especially if you had never heard a single teacher question it?
Last fall, juniors and seniors in my Art of Persuasion class expressed dismay with the “Grace bubble” and sought to engage with a wider range of political viewpoints. Since the BLM protests often came up in our discussions, I thought of assigning Glenn Loury, a Brown University professor and public intellectual whose writings express a nuanced, center-right position on racial issues in America. Unfortunately, my administration put the kibosh on my proposal.
The head of the high school responded to me that “people like Loury’s lived experience—and therefore his derived social philosophy” made him an exception to the rule that black thinkers acknowledge structural racism as the paramount impediment in society. He added that “the moment we are in institutionally and culturally, does not lend itself to dispassionate discussion and debate,” and discussing Loury’s ideas would “only confuse and/or enflame students, both those in the class and others that hear about it outside of the class.” He preferred I assign “mainstream white conservatives,” effectively denying black students the opportunity to hear from a black professor who holds views that diverge from the orthodoxy pushed on them.
I find it self-evidently racist to filter the dissemination of an idea based on the race of the person who espouses it. I find the claim that exposing 11th and 12th graders to diverse views on an important societal issue will only “confuse” them to be characteristic of a fundamentalist religion, not an educational philosophy.
My administration says that these constraints on discourse are necessary to shield students from harm. But it is clear to me that these constraints serve primarily to shield their ideology from harm — at the cost of students’ psychological and intellectual development.
It was out of concern for my students that I spoke out in the “self-care” meeting, and it is out of that same concern that I write today. I am concerned for students who crave a broader range of viewpoints in class. I am concerned for students trained in “race explicit” seminars to accept some opinions as gospel, while discarding as immoral disconfirming evidence. I am concerned for the dozens of students during my time at Grace who shared with me that they have been reproached by teachers for expressing views that are not aligned with the new ideology.
One current student paid me a visit a few weeks ago. He tapped faintly on my office door, anxiously looking both ways before entering. He said he had come to offer me words of support for speaking up at the meeting.
I thanked him for his comments, but asked him why he seemed so nervous. He told me he was worried that a particular teacher might notice this visit and “it would mean that I would get in trouble.” He reported to me that this teacher once gave him a lengthy “talking to” for voicing a conservative opinion in class. He then remembered with a sigh of relief that this teacher was absent that day. I looked him in the eyes. I told him he was a brave young man for coming to see me, and that he should be proud of that.
Then I sent him on his way. And I resolved to write this piece.
CORRECTION: The anecdote about Glenn Loury was originally attributed to the head of Grace Church School. In fact, those statements were made by the head of the high school. Apologies for the error.
Over the weekend I read many testimonials and crafted several blog posts and videos from those stories. Nursing moms losing their milk, menopausal women having periods, and pregnant moms spontaneously aborting their children etc etc…
I have felt the same helpless feelings that hit when the Hpv, H1N1, and Ebola propaganda was hoisted on humanity followed by the vaccine cure all.
Here is the blog post I compiled this morning around a video crafted by Grace.
I agree with her that we need more talk, more questions, more debate. Not less. I am starting a series today to feature the seven minute version of mom stories.
If you would like to be a guest on my podcast to share your fertility story please call: 435-592-3884.
This was an excellent summary of what just happened with the Derek Chavin conviction.
So brave. Watch the whole thing.
Check out Brandon Tatums site here!
