Nov 16

Today’s News 16th November 2024

  • America Calls For Sanity And Prosperity
    America Calls For Sanity And Prosperity

    Authored by Thaddeus G. McCotter via American Greatness,

    Donald Trump’s re-election as President of the United States, including an immense electoral college and popular vote victories, was the American people’s call for sanity and prosperity. For the incoming Trump administration, there is no time to waste in honoring the public’s mandate for change from the Obama and Biden administrations’ radical, dangerous, extreme, and disastrous policies.

    The first step is to lower the country’s political temperature. It won’t be easy.

    On the prevailing side, Mr. Trump’s supporters were elated by his victory and felt a palpable sense of relief at the reprieve it provided from the left’s ideological assault upon everything these God-fearing, patriotic Americans cherish. Yet, even as the election night celebrations continued, the calls began in earnest for the incoming administration to implement the most sweeping policies anyone to the right-of-center could conceive; and, yes, for “accountability” of bad actors, be it through political firings and impeachments, social ostracisms and “cancellations,” and criminal investigations that were expected to lead to indictments and prison sentences.

    This is not unique in the annals of victorious presidential campaigns. Indeed, though one would be loath to acknowledge the irony, such demands were made by Democrats when Mr. Biden captured the White House in 2020. While Mr. Biden and his handlers and Congressional abettors indulged their leftist base with radical legislation, executive orders, and partisan political persecutions, it would behoove Mr. Trump and his supporters to recognize precisely how the American people viewed such unexpected surprises from “Lunch Bucket Joe from Scranton.” And, should they forget, all they need do is look at Vice President Kamala Harris’s electoral map.

    This is not as easy as it sounds, for looking across the political aisle is an embittered and embarrassed Democrat Party. Lashing out at everyone but themselves for the abject failure of their fetid ideologies in matters of peace and prosperity, the left is not in a kumbaya mood—any more than are Mr. Trump’s supporters, who bear the scars of the Democrats’ systematic sedition against the first Trump administration; their despicable lawfare against him personally; and their pervasive slanders, smears, and attacks against his voters.

    Already, under the guise of “offering olive branches,” the Democrats have sought to buy time to regroup, craft a narrative that they are the peacemakers, and wait for the first opportunity to rebrand Mr. Trump as an unstable, wannabe dictator who must be “resisted” by any means because it is justified by his being an existential threat to “our democracy.” It is a repeat of 2016, except in this instance, the size of Mr. Trump’s win has stunned and staggered the left, which necessitates their crafting breathing room to coordinate their counterattack.

    Those blind to the Democrats’ stratagem will foolishly implore Mr. Trump to water down his rhetoric and goals to court the Democrats’ goodwill.

    The GOP and, yes, Mr. Trump have gone down this dead end before and have learned a hard, valuable lesson not to repeat this mistake.

    But this is not about enfeebling, but rather enabling the Republican-Populist agenda and movement.

    Instead, as is his wont, Mr. Trump must grab the bulls**tters by the horns and offer the terms of political comity that will lower the country’s political temperature for the Democrats’ consideration.

    The first and defining measure?

    Announce that upon assuming office you will pardon Hunter, Jim, and Joe Biden for any crime they committed or may have committed.

    Saying it and doing it will cement in the public’s mind that Mr. Trump is not only refraining from doing unto his political enemies what was done unto him but showing the magnanimity in victory of which his Democrat opponents have proven incapable. Armed with the moral high ground and the political insulation this beneficent act would provide, Mr. Trump will have significantly increased his already immense political capital that will be required to pursue and implement the significant policy reforms that he articulated throughout the campaign.

    Of course, there will be pushback within his base by those who don’t accept that.

    If Republicans do unto the Democrats what the latter did unto them, the public will view the GOP as hypocrites, declare a pox on both houses, and recoup the political capital Mr. Trump needs to achieve his agenda. Nothing would more hearten despondent Democrats.

    Mr. Trump well understands this, and, nothing if not a leader, has the abundance of courage to empathize with his defeated opponents, for he has experienced the same feeling—in fact, exponentially more so, as he was the defeated candidate—and an incumbent president to boot. Equipped with this personal experience and acumen, he has the insight to recognize this singular chance to advance his agenda—one containing the very policies that, when implemented, will provide the very sanity and prosperity the voters emphatically demanded when returning him to the Oval Office.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 23:25

  • Skynet On Wheels: Chinese Tech Firm Reveals Terrifying Robo-Dog 
    Skynet On Wheels: Chinese Tech Firm Reveals Terrifying Robo-Dog 

    One of Tesla’s competitors in robotics is the Chinese company Unitree, which is already selling its humanoid G1 robot for $40,000. The company also sells robo-dogs on the Amazon marketplace. Another Chinese robotics company, Deep Robotics, released a new video featuring one of its robo-dogs equipped with wheels, showcasing its ability to scale hillsides and navigate off-road terrain. 

    Deep Robotics describes itself as a “leader in embodied AI technology innovation and application,” adding it’s “the first in China to achieve fully autonomous inspection of substations with quadruped robots.” 

    Earlier this week, Deep Robotics posted a short video on YouTube featuring one of its quadruped robots with wheels. The robot’s mobility is absolutely terrifying. 

    Public trade data compiled by counterparty and supply chain risk intelligence firm Sayari shows that Hangzhou Yunshenchu Technology Co., Ltd owns Deep Robotics.

    The company said its core team members originate from “well-known universities,” including Zhejiang University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Beijing Institute of Technology, Wuhan University, the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, New York University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the Georgia Institute of Technology. 

    Just wait until the Ukrainians see this robot. They might want to strap a machine gun atop this Skynet-like creature. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 23:00

  • Two-Parent Families Are The Key To Safer Cities
    Two-Parent Families Are The Key To Safer Cities

    Authored by Timothy S. Goeglein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Several years ago, after a particularly violent weekend in Chicago, then-Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, said: “This may not be politically correct, but I know the power of what faith and family can do. … Our kids need that structure. … I am asking … that we don’t shy away from a full discussion about the importance of faith and family to develop and nurture character, self-respect, a value system, and a moral compass that allows kids to know good from bad and right from wrong.”

    Shutterstock

    Emmanuel’s plea for a broader discussion indicates that something must be truly amiss. And it is, as a new study directed by Nicholas Zill for the Institute for Family Studies indicates.

    Looking at cities in Ohio, Zill found that there was a much crime rate in cities where two-parent families were in the minority. For instance, only 44 percent of mothers in Springfield, Ohio, were married during the period of 2018–2022. The percentage was even worse in Cleveland with only 33 percent being married, and in Youngstown, which reported only 32 percent were married. Cincinnati fared marginally better at 46 percent.

    In contrast, in Cleveland Heights, 63 percent of mothers were married and in New Albany, Ohio, 91 percent were.

    And the differences between these cities and their rates of violent crime are startling. Zill found that in Springfield, there were 1,298 incidents of violent crime reported per 100,000 residents, 1,895 incidents in Cleveland, 800 in Cincinnati, and 699 in Youngstown. Meanwhile, Cleveland Heights only reported 267 incidents and New Albany had 99.

    This is not surprising. It has been well documented how the rise of fatherless homes has led to a concurrent rise in incarceration rates. Twenty years ago, Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of Princeton University found that young men who grow up in fatherless homes are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional two-parent families.

    The numbers of single-parent homes have only gotten worse since.

    Out-of-wedlock births are now rampant among all groups. In 2022, 39.8 percent of children were born to single mothers. In Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, the percentage is even higher: over 48 percent.

    The issue of missing fathers is particularly acute in our cities but has serious consequences for our society as a whole. Single mothers can be great mothers, but in a single-parent home, as Emmanuel noted, something is lacking—something necessary for children’s emotional and mental development.

    What is lacking is the unique role a father plays in a child’s life.

    For instance, fatherless girls often become severely depressed, self-destructive, or sexually promiscuous as they seek to fill the emotional vacuum left by an absent father.

    Boys, on the other hand, as this study about the link between the lack of two-parent homes and violent crime documents, tend to deal with that void with anger and rage. Thus, many of the tragic shootings or horrible abuses of women we have seen over the past several years have been instigated by boys from broken homes.

    Finally, numerous studies have shown that children in single-parent homes are more likely to engage in substance abuse than those in stable, two-parent (mother and father) homes. These children eventually grow up into adults and bring their drug dependency with them, creating another generation of children trapped in the cycle of family dysfunction, drug abuse, and single parenthood. It is a triple whammy resulting in a downward spiral of despair with each succeeding generation.

    Thus, a society is formed where the dividing line between the haves and have-nots is determined at the very beginning of life. If children are born into a stable, two-parent family they are more likely to be successful in life and avoid bad choices such as engaging in violence and substance abuse. If they are born into the instability of a continued cycle of a broken family, they will likely fall prey to the resulting pathologies.

    That is why, if we are to truly deal with the current violence in our inner cities, we need to focus first on the behaviors that have led to that violence—which means a dedicated effort to restore two-parent families rather than continuing to ignore the issue by enacting policies that encourage broken families. That is my hope—and the result of such an effort will not only be healthier children, but a safer and healthier society as well.

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 22:35

  • Jake Paul Or Mike Tyson?
    Jake Paul Or Mike Tyson?

    Netflix is reportedly paying at least $60 million in purses to make history in its first-ever, live, non-pay-per-view sports broadcast tonight.

    The streaming giant’s venture into live programming pits 27-year-old YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul against 58 year-old ‘Iron’ Mike Tyson.

    The big fight between “Iron Mike” and “The Problem Child” is scheduled to take place at AT&T Stadium, the Arlington, Texas home of the Dallas Cowboys.

    The venue, which holds 80,000, has hosted some major boxing matches over the years, including multiple fights featuring former champion Manny Pacquiao current pound-for-pound No. 1 Canelo Álvarez.

    Tyson will be fighting out of the red corner on Friday night, and weighs in at 228.4 pounds.

    “This fight is not going to change my lifestyle financially,” Tyson said.

    “I feel I can beat this guy.”

    Paul will fight from the blue corner of the ring and enters the fight at 227.2 pounds.

    “I’m here to make $40m and knock out a legend,” Jake Paul told interviewers.

    The fight has garnered a great deal of attention as nobody knows how a 58-year-old Mike Tyson is going to look in his first sanctioned competitive fight since 2005.

    Things got a littel heated at the weigh-in…

    For now, the betting markets favor Paul over Iron Mike, with Tyson’s odds fading today…

    Jake Paul’s Advantages:

    • Age and Stamina: Paul is significantly younger, at 27 years old, which gives him an edge in terms of stamina, recovery, and physical condition. Boxing is indeed a sport where youth can be a substantial advantage.

    • Recent Activity: Paul has been active in the ring, fighting several times in recent years. This regular competition keeps him in fighting shape and provides him with recent experience against diverse opponents.

    • Size and Reach: Paul has a height advantage and possibly a reach advantage, which could help him keep Tyson at bay if he chooses to fight more defensively.

    • Boxing Skill Development: Over his fights, Paul has shown improvement in his boxing technique, particularly in his footwork, jab usage, and defensive maneuvers.

    Mike Tyson’s Advantages:

    • Experience: Tyson’s vast experience as a former undisputed heavyweight champion cannot be overstated. He knows how to fight at the highest levels, how to read opponents, and how to end fights quickly.

    • Power: Even at an advanced age, Tyson’s punching power is legendary. If he can land a clean shot, his power could still be devastating.

    • Motivation: This fight could serve as a significant motivator for Tyson to prove he still has what it takes, which might lead to an exceptional performance.

    Fight Predictions:

    Betting odds generally favor Paul due to his youth and recent activity, but there’s a significant portion of the public and some experts betting on Tyson, driven by nostalgia and his raw power.

    • Scenario 1 – Early Knockout: If Tyson can replicate his old explosive starts and land a significant punch early, he could potentially knock out Paul.

    • Scenario 2 – Endurance and Strategy: If the fight goes beyond the initial rounds, Paul’s superior conditioning and strategy might wear Tyson down, leading to a win either by knockout or decision.

    • Scenario 3 – Fight Integrity: There’s always the possibility in such high-profile, exhibition-like bouts that the fight might not be as competitive as it could be due to various external factors, but given the statements from both fighters and the sanctioning of the bout, this seems less likely.

    Conclusion:

    While many factors could play into the outcome, if one were to go by the majority of expert opinions and odds:

    Jake Paul is likely to win due to his youth, recent fighting experience, and physical advantages. However, Mike Tyson’s power and experience make him a dangerous opponent, and if he can catch Paul with a solid punch, nothing can be ruled out.

    The fight’s result might also depend on how Tyson has prepared, considering his age and health conditions.

    Remember, in boxing, one punch can change everything, especially when it comes from someone with Tyson’s history.

    *  *  *

    Netflix will start coverage of the full fight card at 2000ET.

    Who are the Jake Paul-Mike Tyson Ring Girls?

    • Lexi Williams – Instagram superstar; 1.4M followers; “I’m so excited to be a part of this moment,” she wrote on Instagram. One of the true titans of the Instagram modeling world

    • Sydney Thomas – Making her second career ring girl appearance

    • Raphaela Milagres – Brazilian model who worked the Jake Paul vs. Andre August fight in 2023

    • Virginia Sanhouse – Venezuelan model with 5.5M TikTok followers

    • Delia Sylvain – Veteran ring girl who worked the Jake Paul vs. Mike Perry fight in July.

    Full Card:

    • Heavyweight: Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul

    • Super Lightweight: Katie Taylor vs. Amanda Serrano for Taylor’s IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO women’s super-lightweight titles

    • Welterweight: Mario Barrios vs. Abel Ramos for Barrios’ WBC welterweight title

    • Super Middleweight: Neeraj Goyat vs. Whindersson Nunes

    • Super Middleweight: Shadasia Green vs Melinda Watpool for vacant women’s WBO super middleweight title

    • Super Lightweight: Lucas Bahdi vs. Armando Casamonica

    • Featherweight: Bruce Carrington vs Dana Coolwell

    As PJMedia’s Scott Pinsker warns, make no mistake, Mike Tyson is still a master artist. He’s still an all-time great. 

    Jake Paul is scribbling with crayons. 

    On their merits, if Tyson has ANYTHING left, he will flatten Paul. It shouldn’t go more than a couple of rounds, two minutes or not. Mike Tyson on Testosterone Replacement Therapy is probably less like a guy pushing 60 and more like an athlete in his 40s.

    If the fix is in, it’s almost certainly for Tyson to take the dive. That’s how it’s always been in boxing: The old lion makes way for the younger (and more marketable) lion. 

    Some boxing insiders suspect as much.

    After all, Paul has exponentially more to lose: If Tyson loses, he’s still Mike Tyson, but if Paul loses, he’s done.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 22:24

  • Israeli Officials Belatedly Claim Secret Nuclear Site Destroyed In Last Month's Iran Strikes
    Israeli Officials Belatedly Claim Secret Nuclear Site Destroyed In Last Month’s Iran Strikes

    Very belatedly, Axios has issued a report which claims Israel’s airstrikes on Iran last month destroyed an active nuclear weapons research facility in Parchin. Three US officials and a pair of Israeli officials were cited for the Friday report.

    “The strike — which targeted a site previously reported to be inactive — significantly damaged Iran’s effort over the past year to resume nuclear weapons research, Israeli and U.S. officials said,” the report says. The site has been identified, also in satellite images, as the Parchin Military Complex.

    TOI: Satellite photo from Planet Labs PBC shows damaged buildings at Iran’s Parchin military base outside of Tehran, Iran, October 27, 2024. The damaged structures are in the bottom right corner & bottom center of the image. Planet Labs PBC via AP

    This included the destruction of “sophisticated equipment used to design the plastic explosives that surround uranium in a nuclear device and are needed to detonate it,” according to the sources.

    Iran has of course never acknowledged or confirmed this, and it rejects the accusation that it possesses an active nuclear weapons program. Instead, Tehran insists it only has a peaceful nuclear weapons program.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have for years insisted that the Islamic Republic is bent on acquiring a nuke, and Netanyahu in particular has expressed readiness to do anything to stop it.

    Israel’s Oct. 26 attack, which ostensibly was in retaliation for Iran’s Oct.1st ballistic missile attack on Israel, was conducted by airstrikes – and Israeli officials informed the US ahead of time that neither oil nor nuclear sites were being targeted.

    If Israel actually destroyed the facility at Parchin, this would mean Israel deceived its number one external back and ally the US (which certainly wouldn’t be a first).

    However, this might also be propaganda and PR-signaling for other purposes. For starters, the author of the Axios report, Barak Ravid, has long been known to quickly convey Israeli government talking points to the public. If Netanyahu government officials want something ‘leaked’ to the West, they often go through him.

    As for timing of the report, the Times of Israel (TOI) highlights the following imminent UN action:

    The report came as the UN nuclear watchdog prepares to vote on censuring Iran for refusing to cooperate with its inspectors, and amid a report that the Islamic Republic told the Biden administration last month it would not seek to assassinate US president-elect Donald Trump.

    There is legitimate fear that after the Gaza war kicked off, and as Iran and Israel have traded tit-for-tat direct strikes for the first time, Tehran may be indeed pursuing a nuke.

    Israeli attack on Parchin “nuclear site”: Fact or Fiction?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    If so, the world can expect more Israeli anti-Iran action, including the potential resumption of a sabotage and cyberwarfare campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear sites and infrastructure. In the past, Mossad has even assassinated top Iranian nuclear scientists.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 22:10

  • X Sees Return Of Major Advertisers As NewsGuard & "Boycott Cartel" Come Under Fire From FCC
    X Sees Return Of Major Advertisers As NewsGuard & “Boycott Cartel” Come Under Fire From FCC

    While Mark Cuban and other sore losers are leaving X to shout into the void, several major advertisers have returned to the platform.

    Comcast, IBM, Disney, Warner Brothers, Discovery and Lionsgate Entertainment have all resumed ad spending on the social media giant – albeit this is more of a toe-dip than a full recommitment. According to Adweek, the brands collectively spent less than $3.3 million on X from January to September 2024, a far cry from the $170 million spent during the same period in 2023.

    Either way, it’s an admission that pulling ad spend over ‘hate speech’ and ‘antisemitism’ was nothing more than a giant virtue signal, particularly considering Facebook and Instagram’s long history of providing a safe forum for child sexual abuse.

    While a global survey by Kantar of senior marketers across 20 countries found that 26% of them plan to cut spending on X in 2025, the 2024 election may have changed that.

    “X’s owner now has the ear of the president-elect, a man who has a long history of helping his friends, and punishing his enemies,” said Max Willens, senior analyst at Emarketer. “Sending at least a trickle of ad spending toward X may be seen as good for business, albeit in an indirect way.”

    Advertising Cartel Under Fire

    Speaking of the tide turning, the woke cabal of advertisers trying to starve conservative platforms out of a voice is now coming under fire (have we mentioned lately that we really appreciate our premium subscribers?).

    In a Wednesday letter to Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Meta, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr accused them of having “participated in a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies but advertising, marketing, and so-called “fact-checking” organizations as well as the Biden-Harris Administration itself.”

    “The relevant conduct extended from removing or blocking social media posts to suppress their information and viewpoints, including through efforts to delist them, lower their rankings, or harm their profitability.”

    Carr then suggested that their protection from liability under Section 230 may be on the line.

    “As you know, Big Tech’s prized liability shield, Section 230, is codified in the Communications Act, which the FCC administers. As relevant here, Section 230 only confers benefits on Big Tech companies when they operate, in the words of the statute, “in good faith.”

    Wow…

    Carr then set his sights on NewsGuard – which Jonathan Turley notes has been long accused by conservatives “of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.”

    Basically, NewsGuard bombards conservative sites with struggle-session questionnaire emails demanding explanations for the slightest of indiscretions, after which they issue a “report card” that advertisers use to justify pulling ad spend.

    As Carr notes in the letter; “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with the one specific organization – the Orwellian named NewsGuard. As exposed by the Twitter Files, NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel. Indeed, NewsGuard bills itself as the Internet’s arbiter of truth or, as its co-founder put it, a “Vaccine Against Misinformation.” Newsguard purports to rate the credibility of news and information outlets and tells readers and advertisers which outlets they can trust.”

    Carr suggests following NewsGuard’s ratings may constitute a violation of Section 230 (this is huge).

    “NewsGuard’s own track record raises questions about whether relying on the organization’s products would constitute “good faith” actions within the meaning of Section 230. For one, reports indicate that NewsGuard has consistently rated official propaganda from the Communist Party of China as more credible than American publications.“

    “For another, NewsGuard aggressively fact checked and penalized websites that reported on the COVID-19 lab leak theory.”

    Carr then demands the following information:

    1. A list of every one of your products or services (if any, including advertising) that use or rely on any NewsGuard product, service, or ranking.
    2. A list of every one of your products or services (if any) that enables any of your users or customers to use or rely on NewsGuard product, service, or ranking.
    3. If you offer an advertising service, provide details on the use of any media monitor or fact checking service, including NewsGuard, that you may utilize.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 22:00

  • Study Reveals Why COVID-19 Vaccine Antibodies Wane Rapidly
    Study Reveals Why COVID-19 Vaccine Antibodies Wane Rapidly

    Authored by Marina Zhang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    Research led by scientists at Emory University in Atlanta found that while tetanus and influenza vaccines prompt the body to produce long-lived plasma cells that generate antibodies, COVID-19 vaccines do not.

    cery/Shutterstock

    The study may explain why antibody protection from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines wanes so rapidly.

    The mRNA vaccines cause the body to produce short-lived plasma cells that can only generate antibodies for a period of time before dying off.

    Vaccines like tetanus give long-lasting immunity, with antibodies persisting in the body for up to 10 years. COVID-19 antibodies rapidly wane three to six months after vaccination, often resulting in breakthrough infections.

    The study’s senior author, Dr. Frances Eun-Hyung Lee, professor of medicine and director of Emory University’s Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology program, told The Epoch Times that it is still unclear why COVID-19 vaccines do not confer durable antibody immunity, though there are several possibilities.

    According to the researcher, one reason could be that the body cannot form long-term immunity to COVID-19. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine induces the body to produce COVID-19 spike proteins to stimulate the immune response. This spike protein may not be stimulating enough to cause the formation of lifelong plasma cells.

    Another reason could be that the mRNA vaccine platform, which delivers the vaccine to the body, does not induce durable antibody immunity.

    Currently, mRNA vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are in development. Whether these vaccines confer durable immunity to the viruses they are intended to protect against may help explain the body’s response to COVID-19 vaccines.

    “We will have to wait and see if the reason … is unique to the spike protein or if it’s something unique to the mRNA platform,” Lee told The Epoch Times.

    Not All Immunity Is Lifelong

    It was generally assumed that when people get infected with or vaccinated against viruses or bacteria, the immunity formed would be life-long, Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor in the Microbiology & Immunology Department at the University of Iowa, told The Epoch Times.

    However, the current study and other research on RSV, which infects people every year despite everyone having antibodies to the virus by age 3, suggests that whether a person is immune to a virus or bacteria can vary depending on the pathogen, Lee said.

    The study, published in Nature Medicine in September, followed 19 healthy volunteers who had taken influenza, tetanus, and several COVID-19 vaccines and boosters. Researchers extracted immune cells from their bone marrow and followed them for up to three years.

    They found that these participants had durable plasma cells—a type of cell that provides lifelong immunity—that generate antibodies to influenza and tetanus but no or few durable plasma cells working against COVID-19 spike proteins.

    When our B-cells (immune cells) encounter a pathogen, they divide into plasma cells and produce antibodies. Most of these cells will die, but a few will migrate into specific niches in the bone marrow and mature into long-lived plasma cells.

    “Even if some of these cells want to die, they can’t,” Lee said. “They undergo changes in their RNA and changes in their DNA so that they can become resistant to apoptosis (cell death).”

    “There’re many other factors and mechanisms and programs, and we’re trying to study those and unravel those steps so that we can figure out how to make the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine better.”

    Having long-term immunity also does not “guarantee complete protection against future infections,” Dr. Joseph Varon, professor of medicine at the University of Houston and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, told The Epoch Times. “Viruses can evolve to escape immune responses, and waning immunity or other factors like age and health status can influence vulnerability.”

    This is why new influenza vaccines are made every year as the virus evolves and changes, Lee said.

    Infections Did Not Enhance Immunity

    Some participants likely contracted COVID-19 throughout the study period, indicated by a sudden spike in COVID-19 antibody levels despite a lack of immunization. However, the authors found this was also not linked to the formation of long-lasting plasma cells.

    This finding concurs with prior research by the University of Maryland, which found that COVID-19 infections did not induce long-term antibody protection.

    In some cases, infections may result in stronger immunity than vaccines can provide. Life-long immunity to influenza, for example, is likely driven by natural immunity rather than vaccination.

    Antibodies formed from only the influenza vaccine may last a few months. However, since many vaccinated people will also become infected, this cross-reactivity is likely what drives plasma cells to mature into durable cells, Lee said.

    Boosting Did Not Increase Durable Antibodies

    Some study participants took several doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during the study period.

    The authors found that having more doses of mRNA vaccines did “not necessarily promote more” long-lived plasma cell responses in the study’s small cohort.

    “These findings reinforce the fact that boosters are not really working at this point,“ Varon said. ”Boosters can temporarily restore protection by increasing circulating antibodies and memory immune cells.”

    Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, said that people who are at high risk of dying from COVID-19 should still follow the schedule from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which recommends vaccinating every six months.

    Lee agreed, adding that while her study found that antibody protection is short-lived, there are other cells in the body, like T-cells, by which vaccinations confer long-lived immunity and could, therefore, still be helpful for people at a higher risk of infection.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 21:45

  • Texas Rental Market "Collapsing Before Our Eyes" 
    Texas Rental Market “Collapsing Before Our Eyes” 

    Housing market data from Redfin shows that US asking rents were flat in October, rising marginally by .2% year-over-year to $1,619. For two years, rents have remained flat nationwide following a massive boom during Covid, sparked by low interest rates and domestic migration trends. Now, in cities like Austin, Texas, rents are sliding due to a surge in new supply and reduced demand. 

    Drilling down into Austin’s rental data, Nick Gerli, CEO and founder of the real estate analytics firm Reventure Consulting, shared on X a concerning breakdown of the local rental market downturn that could have landlords in the metro area deeply spooked. 

    Let’s begin with Gerli’s tweet… 

    The Austin, TX rental market is collapsing before our eyes.

    With the median apartment rent dropping 15% over the last 2+ years.

    The vacancies have skyrocketed. Rental concessions are everywhere.

    Rents are now only 9.8% higher than pre-pandemic. Meaning that many Austin landlords are losing money, as property taxes, insurance, and interest costs are way higher.

    (This is a harsh lesson on the boom/bust cycle in real estate for many developers and investors who bought into Austin during the boom. Read more below to see how this happened.)

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Austin’s rental vacancy rate has exploded to a seven-year high: 

    You can see this reality expressed in vacancy rate statistics from Apartment list.

    At the height of the pandemic in Sept 2021, Austin’s rental vacancy rate was only 3.9%. Now it’s 9.5% The highest level going back 7 years.

    Gerli pointed out landlords in Austin are under severe pressure: 

    With so many vacant apartments, and rents that are still overpriced, landlords have no choice but to cut the rent to put heads in beds. Especially on lease-up projects. Which often deliver 200-400 units vacant all at once. This is exerting massive downward pressure on the rental market.

    This is very good news for renters. He said:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Gerli explained that in 2025, Austin will continue to have an apartment supply issue, which means lower rents. 

    Gerli speculates…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    He cited Reventure App data showing that home prices in Austin were once 50% overvalued. That figure now stands at around 12%.

    Gerli concludes by forecasting a possible bottom forming in Austin’s housing market sometime in 2025. 

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 21:20

  • The Election, Common-Sense Democrats, & The Long March
    The Election, Common-Sense Democrats, & The Long March

    Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

    Not long before Tuesday’s election, Ruy Teixeira, a Democratic political scientist and commentator, predicted that, regardless of the outcome of the election, the contemporary progressive movement was dead. Harris, he intimated, could still win the election, but the dominant force in Democratic politics for the last two decades was done. Voters had clearly and unambiguously voiced their distaste for the four pillars of contemporary progressivism: open borders/mass immigration, lax law enforcement/social disorder, identity politics, and the war on fossil fuels. As Teixeira astutely noted, the electorate simply isn’t buying what the progressives are selling.

    Teixeira, it should be noted, is not alone in his concerns about and disapproval of the contemporary progressive agenda and its alienating effect on average voters. In the few days since Donald Trump handily defeated Kamala Harris, a handful of prominent Democrats have condemned their party’s polarizing platform and have echoed Teixeira’s denunciation of the progressives’ stubbornness. For example, Matt Yglesias, a longtime left-wing journalist and political commentator, posted a short “common sense” Democratic platform to restore the party’s following, overtly rejecting the entirety of the progressive plan. Like Teixeira, Yglesias slammed the progressives’ obsessions with climate, race, and anti-social behavior in particular.

    Based on what we all saw the other night—the most improbable political comeback in American history and a realignment of the electorate—it is clear that both Teixeira and Yglesias are right. The progressive movement has enfeebled the Democratic Party and made it unappealing to a majority of voters. In order to stave off long-term minority-party status, Democrats must move on from contemporary progressivism and must realign themselves with the needs and wants of their traditional voters. The party must change.

    There’s only one problem—and it reminds me of the old joke:

    Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: Only one, but the light bulb really has to want to change.

    Teixeira, Yglesias, James Carville, and a host of other Democrats are inarguably correct about the state of their party, the malign influences on it, and the necessity of change.

    The problem is that the party has to want to change first, which is not as easy as it sounds.

    Indeed, there are several very important reasons why the Democratic Party will not change—why it cannot change.

    The most obvious and overpowering of these is the capture of the institutions.

    For decades, conservatives have noted that the far-left controls all of the institutions of cultural transmission in this country (and in the West more generally). We have noted as well that this is hardly an accident, a fateful coincidence. It is by design and the result of a century-long effort by Marxist revisionists, executed with dedication and determination.

    In my book, The Dictatorship of Woke Capital, I spend an entire chapter discussing that which the infamous East German Marxist student-leader Rudi Dutschke later called “the long march through the institutions.”  In brief, after World War I, the Marxists of Europe realized that the workers of the world were never going to unite and throw off their chains, meaning that the long-anticipated revolution was never going to occur—or at least it was never going to occur on its own.  The revolution and the triumph of Communism were not, as Marx had declared, historically inevitable.  They would have to be incited.

    Antonio Gramsci, György Lukács, and the scholars at the Frankfurt School (helmed by Max Horkheimer) collectively decided that the only way to accomplish this incitement was to alter the consciousness of the workers, to strip them of their institutionally created false consciousness and liberate them “from the circumstances that enslave them.”  And the way to do that, in turn, was, as Horkheimer put it, to mount a “historical effort to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers of men.”  In short, they would have to change society by changing its institutions of consciousness and cultural transmission.  Hence, the “long march.”

    Near the end of that chapter, I note how shockingly successful the long march has been, especially in the United States.  Whereas Marx was a crackpot who knew almost nothing about economics, history, or the conditions of the working class, his post-war successors turned out to be quite brilliant and attuned to the nature of the relationship between man and society.  In less than half a century, the critical theorists “managed to do precisely what Gramsci and Lukács had suggested needed doing a half-century earlier”:

    They stripped away the veneer of false consciousness—or, more accurately, they stripped away the consciousness that had existed previously, replacing it with their own consciousness, one rooted in skepticism and alienation, which would become the overarching themes in higher education and every single endeavor subsequently undertaken by those who passed through the American system of higher education from the 1970s on.

    Conservatives have dealt with the repercussions of the Long March and the takeover of the institutions for a long time. And they’ve adapted to it as best they can. They’ve created their own intellectual organizations (think tanks), their own media environment, and a host of other competing institutions designed to blunt the impact of the Long March. While this effort has been impressive and important in resisting the far-left’s takeover of the culture, it has also been a strictly rearguard undertaking. Conservatives are constantly having to defend themselves and what’s left of the traditional culture from the advancing institutions. With the left firmly in charge of the educational, religious, news, and entertainment establishments, the best conservatives can do is to “hang on” to whatever scraps are still up for grabs.

    The catch here is that this is an existential challenge not just for conservatives but for “common-sense” non-progressive liberals as well. These institutions were not taken over by “liberals” or moderate Democrats. They were taken over by leftists, by radicals, by the very progressives whom Teixeira and Yglesias have identified as the cause of the Democrats’ disconnect with the electorate. In other words, changing the Democratic Party and restoring it to its former common-sense, working-class roots is an undertaking that will run into the very same ivy-covered wall that has stymied conservatives for decades.

    It is no mere coincidence that Ruy Teixeira works for the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative-ish think tank) and, before that, worked for the Brookings Institution (a center-left think tank). There really is no home for a guy like him in traditional academia. Likewise, it’s no coincidence that Matt Yglesias left traditional news media to start his own outlet (Vox.com) and now does most of his work on Substack, an “alternative” media platform. He too is out of place in the contemporary institutional arena. Such is the nature of the game.

    The difference between conservatives and the center-left is that conservatives have invested heavily in building their own institutions, while the denizens of the center-left have not really understood until now (if they do, indeed, understand at all) that the takeover of the institutions was meant to undermine their worldview as much as conservatives.’ For the most part, they do not have their own alternative institutions and therefore do not have their own means for fighting the far-left’s cultural takeover.

    It is largely inarguable that the nation would be far better off with a Democratic Party dominated by non-progressives, but that’s not especially likely, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 20:55

  • More Young Men Are Now Religious Than Women In The US
    More Young Men Are Now Religious Than Women In The US

    Younger generations of women are less religious than their male counterparts in the United States, according to data from a Statista Consumer Insights survey.

    As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports, this marks a shift, as historically, U.S. women have been the more religious group.

    As this chart shows, for both genders, religion is becoming less widespread overall.

    Infographic: More Young Men Are Now Religious Than Women in the U.S. | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., by a long shot.

    Statista data shows that 51 percent of Gen Z males self-identify as Christian, with the next biggest religious groups Islam (six percent), Buddhism (two percent).

    Only six percent of Gen Z men are atheists and 17 percent non-religious.

    For Gen Z women, 48 percent said their religion is Christianity, while only two percent said Islam and two percent Buddhism.

    Six percent of Gen Z women are atheists and 22 percent identify as non-religious.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 20:30

  • Vitamin D Supplements Lower Blood Pressure In Older Adults With Obesity: Study
    Vitamin D Supplements Lower Blood Pressure In Older Adults With Obesity: Study

    Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

    High blood pressure often affects older and obese people; vitamin D supplements may help lower it.

    Sathit/Shutterstock

    A new study has found that taking 600 international units (IU) of vitamin D per day—the amount typically recommended for adults—lowers blood pressure in older adults, especially those who are obese.

    Experts caution that exceeding the recommended intake, even below the safe upper limit (UL), does not necessarily translate to additional benefits.

    Supplementation Reduced Blood Pressure

    The study, published Tuesday in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, involved 221 older obese adults who received vitamin D supplements at either 600 IU per day or 3,750 IU per day over one year. Currently, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends a daily intake of 600 IU.

    Partcipants’ overall systolic blood pressure decreased by 3.5 mm Hg after one year, and diastolic blood pressure decreased by 2.5 mm Hg after one year.

    Those who took higher doses of 3,750 IU daily had a slightly higher decrease of 4.2 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure. In comparison, those who took the lower 600 IU per day generally reported a reduction of 2.8 mm Hg after one year.

    The authors concluded that the differences between the high- and low-dose vitamin D groups were not statistically significant.

    People with a higher body mass index (BMI) of over 30 saw more significant reductions in blood pressure, especially in the high-dose group. People who took blood pressure medication with their vitamin D also observed substantial decreases in their overall blood pressure.

    All participants also received daily supplements that included 1,000 milligrams of calcium.

    No Significant Benefits From Higher Doses

    The study’s findings showed that regular supplementation resulted in a decrease in blood pressure among participants. However, a comparison of the two dosage groups found that higher dosages of vitamin D did not provide further health benefits.

    “More vitamin D is not better in terms of blood pressure,” study author Dr. Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan from the American University of Beirut Medical Center told The Epoch Times in an email. “Indeed, 3,750 IU/day does not lower blood pressure more than 600 IU/day, which is the Institute of Medicine recommended dose.”

    These results “need to be validated in a trial with blood pressure as the primary outcome,” she added.

    The research team considered the UL for vitamin D intake established by the IOM (4,000 IU daily) when selecting doses for participants. “3,750 IU/day is below the IOM UL, and was specifically selected to be so,” Fuleihan wrote.

    The higher dose is unlikely to cause harmful health effects, she added. “None of our patients had signs or symptoms of vitamin D intoxication,” she noted. Symptoms of vitamin D intoxication include nausea, vomiting, and kidney stones.

    Fuleihan emphasized that the decision to supplement vitamin D should ultimately be made in consultation with a patient’s primary health care provider.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 20:05

  • Trump's Coming War On The Mexican Drug Cartels
    Trump’s Coming War On The Mexican Drug Cartels

    Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times,

    President-elect Donald Trump has declared war on the drug cartels in Mexico. “The drug cartels are waging war on America, and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels,” he said in one of his toughest videos ever.

    Photos of fentanyl victims are displayed at The Faces of Fentanyl Memorial at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration headquarters in Arlington, Va., on Sept. 27, 2022. Alex Wong/Getty Images

    And it wasn’t the first time. He strongly advocated for many of the same actions in his first term and got results.

    Trump’s incoming appointees support that tough approach. The potential future “border czar,” Thomas Homan, said on Nov. 12 that Trump is committed to deploying the “full might of the United States Special Operations to take them out.” The appointed defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, said in 2023 that military “precision strikes” on the cartels might be needed to deter them from operating “in the open with impunity.”

    The United States has every ethical reason to launch a war on the cartels. They use chemical precursors from China to produce the vast majority of the illegal fentanyl that causes most of the 82,000 opioid overdose deaths in 2022 in the United States. That’s over 27 times more deaths every year than happened from the 9/11 attacks.

    Fentanyl poisoning is deliberate and far worse in the number of deaths than anti-U.S. terrorism. Those who sell illegal fentanyl in the United States, when it results in death, are justly convicted of murder.

    Yet China and Mexico get off scot-free. Beijing uses its supply of precursors as leverage against the United States on issues like Taiwan, which proves that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends the deaths that result when Washington does not submit. If we want Beijing to stop the shipment of precursors, the CCP demands that we stop following the law to supply Taiwan with the weapons it needs for its self-defense. Some have called these CCP actions a form of blackmail, chemical warfare, or genocide. Arguably, they are all three.

    Just as the mullahs in Iran used Hamas to attack Israel, the CCP is using Mexican cartels to attack the United States. The risk for Hamas and now the cartels is that they could be targeted in response. Trump published an “action plan to destroy the drug cartels” in December. He is threatening to designate them as terrorist organizations, cut them off from the international financial system, hit them with cyberattacks, deport or execute foreign drug dealers and gang members, finish the border wall, and eliminate cartel leaders. This could be done with cruise or drone-fired missiles.

    If Mexico fails to help or take over these tasks themselves, Trump could unmask the Mexican politicians who cooperate with the cartels, entirely close the border, impose tariffs on Mexico, and impose a naval blockade to stop precursor shipments.

    The falsely glamorous image of being a cartel leader with a grand hacienda, pool, caravan, and armed guards posted on the perimeter wall will not seem so glamorous when these expensive homes and vehicles attract Hellfire missiles on a regular basis, forcing drug kingpins into less glamorous digs in hill camps and Mexico City’s back alleys. Neither will it be honorable to be a high government official in Mexico when Trump starts unmasking them as on the cartel payroll.

    None of this will be particularly easy. The Mexican government opposes U.S. military force on Mexican territory. Designating the cartels as terrorists and using covert operations is one response. Mexico is America’s largest trade partner and could withhold drug enforcement and immigration cooperation, though there is not much of that anyway.

    The United States should not attempt to take and hold territory permanently in Mexico, as this would be a violation of the U.S.-led international order that we help enforce by protecting Taiwan and Ukraine against China and Russia, for example. We should not become the enemy we oppose. But short cross-border targeted attacks on cartels would not be dissimilar to U.S. operations in Pakistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. America needs to rapidly and vigorously defend itself against all attacks, including novel offensives like fentanyl, or we lose our deterrent credibility.

    Another difficulty is diplomatic. A naval, drone, or special operations campaign in Mexico could cause the United States stress at the United Nations and with our allies. But ethics are on our side because we are under attack with building U.S. civilian casualties that are greater than in any war in U.S. history. The new U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Elise Stefanik, is tough as nails and up to the job of defending us there.

    Trump’s critics note that a finished border wall could still be tunneled under, from a house on the Mexican side to a house on the U.S. side, for example. Many such tunnels reportedly already exist, making it difficult for U.S. law enforcement to catch the smugglers. And none of this would stop fentanyl from coming in through the millions of small mail packages flown into the United States from China and around the world. If producing fentanyl is difficult in Mexico, it could be moved to Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), or Nigeria. There are plenty of global criminal organizations that would welcome the chance to profit and care little about the deaths of innocent Americans.

    But not fighting the worst drug kingpins and most prolific illegal labs, wherever they are found, is to acquiesce in the deaths of U.S. innocents and is therefore not an option. Destroying as many of the cartel bosses and labs as possible serves to not only stop at least some of them but also strengthens deterrence against others.

    Accelerating plans for a war on the cartels will make officials in Mexico, and those from around the world, much more pliable to Trump’s demands. Their caving in advance of Trump’s war would be the best of all worlds and something that happened in 2019 by Mexican negotiators when he made similar plans. However, Mexico quickly fell back into its old ways over the last four years.

    So this time, Trump may not be as willing to make a deal. He might just start with the public disclosure of bribery in Mexico City as justification for his military strikes against the worst of the cartel leaders and their illegal fentanyl labs out in the country. The nexus between the cartel bosses and corrupt politicians is a target-rich environment, and Trump has appropriate plans for both.

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 19:15

  • Zelensky Denounces Scholz Call As 'Pandora's Box' Of Appeasing Putin
    Zelensky Denounces Scholz Call As ‘Pandora’s Box’ Of Appeasing Putin

    Russian media reports have said the Swiss government is willing to play host to any future direct negotiations between Moscow and Ukraine to end the war.

    Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs was cited in Izvestia as responding to a question on whether it would mediate by hosting talks: “Traditionally, Swiss foreign policy is centered on offering its services as a mediator whenever both parties agree,” the Swiss government agency said.

    Via AFP

    TASS writes of potential Kremlin reluctance as follows: “However, Moscow remains highly skeptical about Bern’s neutrality, given Switzerland’s support for anti-Russian sanctions and its active cooperation with NATO forces, the newspaper reports.”

    “Experts suggest that, alongside Switzerland, several countries in Asia, Africa, and South America could also serve as potential hosts for negotiations between the two leaders,” the state media commentary continues.

    Russia is likely to prefer a host country which is neither in the EU or NATO, which could rule out candidates like Hungary or Turkey.

    Things are beginning to thaw in terms of diplomatic openings, especially given the Friday phone call between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Russian President Vladmir Putin. Such efforts have been boosted given Trump is vowing to end the Ukraine war as soon as he takes office.

    Scholz had urged the Russian leader to “negotiate with Ukraine” in order to enact a “just and lasting peace.”

    But Ukraine is angry, worried about getting pressured into a ‘bad deal’ which will result in conceding territory with inadequate security guarantees. Zelensky is worried that the West is ‘normalizing’ communications with Putin, essentially. But that is how diplomacy has to happen in the real world.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Zelensky blasted the call and accused Scholz of opening “Pandora’s box” – with Ukraine’s foreign ministry saying in a statement: “Talk only give[s] Putin hope of easing his international isolation.”

    “What is needed are concrete, strong actions that will force him to peace, not persuasion and attempts at appeasement, which he sees as a sign of weakness and uses to his advantage,” a statement said.

    The Kremlin in turn hailed the Scholz phone call, which we detailed earlier, as “positive”. Russia is in the diplomatic driver’s seat at this point, which is a result of the reality of Ukraine fast losing ground in the east.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 18:50

  • Will Tulsi Be Able To Direct The Intelligence 'Community'?
    Will Tulsi Be Able To Direct The Intelligence ‘Community’?

    Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

    The next director of national intelligence needs courage, political smarts and strong presidential backing to fulfill her duty to oversee and provide advice on covert action…

    President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence (DNI) will cause shockwaves in and among the 18 fiefdoms that now comprise the U.S. intelligence community.

    Gabbard will be fighting an uphill battle if she tries to herd those 18 cats into a cohesive whole and restore integrity to intelligence analysis. The hill’s incline will be still steeper, if she takes seriously her duty to warn the president of the frequently noxious blowback of C.I.A. covert actions. I cannot overcome the urge to quote from “The Princess Bride”: Good luck stormin’ the castle, Tulsi … It will take a miracle!

    In short, the odds are against her. Whether she succeeds depends, first and foremost, on how strongly the president backs her.  Unlike most former DNIs, she has already demonstrated uncommon courage, as well as smarts and political skill.

    On the other hand, she has had virtually no experience managing a large institution, much less a “community” well versed in internecine warfare to protect individual rice bowls, and populated with careerist bureaucrats all too accustomed to telling the ultimate boss, the president, what he wants to hear.

    Important Duties

    The DNI is in charge of preparing The President’s Daily Brief (PDB), National Intelligence Estimates and the annual Threat Assessment required by Congress. What is less well known is her role in covert action — a favorite of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service.

     Executive Order 12333 (July 2008) stipulates:

    “The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall oversee and provide advice to the President and the NSC with respect to all ongoing and proposed covert action programs.”

    Thus, what the EO says. My own experience suggests that this covert-action-related duty has been more honored in the breach than in the observance, so to speak. Director of Central Intelligence William Colby was, in my personal experience, the only director to give intelligence analysts a look at some covert action proposals and ask for comment. I served directly under Colby as an acting national intelligence officer in the mid-70s.

    Colby, at left, briefing President Gerald Ford and his senior advisers on the deteriorating situation in Vietnam, April 28, 1975. (David Hume Kennerly, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Public domain)

    Will DNI Tulsi Gabbard (assuming she is confirmed by the Senate) step up to this task? It would take uncommon courage. Was the current DNI, Avril Haines, informed beforehand that the C.I.A. would blow up the Nord Stream pipelines? If so, did she give it her blessing? Or was she kept in the dark?

    Blowing Up Pipelines …

    My guess is that DNI Gabbard would have promptly recognized the folly in that C.I.A. “can-do” attitude/escapade and would have briefed the president on its longer-term implications. She is a good listener to analysts who she asks to brief her. I know that, too, from personal experience responding to her questions when she was one of Hawaii’s representatives in the House.

    It would take a courageous and politically astute person and strong backing and trust from the president for any DNI to be able to fulfill the duty to  “oversee and provide advice … on covert action programs.”

    … and Blowing Off the Analysts

    Sizable covert action programs require a sanity check from analysts with substantive expertise, as sad experience has shown. Recall the Bay of Bigs operation of April 1961.  At President John Kennedy’s request, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. investigated the affair. His conclusion, set down in a MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT dated June 30, 1961, speaks for itself:

    “The trouble with the Cuban [Bay of Pigs] operation, for example, was not that the intelligence and operations were combined, but precisely that the Cuban operation evaded systematic intelligence judgment. The Intelligence Branch (DDI) of the CIA was never informed of the existence of the Cuban operation. The Office of National Estimates was never asked to comment on the assumption, for example, that discontent had reached the point in Cuba where a successful landing operation would provoke uprisings behind the lines and defections from the Militia.

    I gather that if its opinion had been invited, DDI would have given quite a different estimate of the state of opinion in Cuba from that on which the operation was based. …

    The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State knew even less about the Cuban operation.”

    DNI Position: A Creature of 9/11

    As most are aware, there was enough intelligence available before 9/11 to prevent it. But the cats would not be herded. C.I.A. would not share with F.B.I. and vice versa. NSA would share with no one. Here’s one account that will turn your stomach.

    Tenet listening to President George W. Bush’s address on Sept. 11, 2001, in the President’s Emergency Operations Center. (U.S. National Archives via Flickr, Public domain)

    The congressional oversight committees as well as the administration and the intelligence community were not only intent on covering up what had happened, but needed to make it appear that remedial action was being taken.

    Enter the 9/11 Commission and its recommendations. Here, they said, was the problem: George Tenet, as director of central intelligence (head of the whole community) as well as chief of the C.I.A. was overburdened.

    In fact, Tenet was the antithesis of an effective head of the intelligence community; he screwed up royally. But he also knew “where the bodies were buried” — which key administration and congressional officials had been exposed to some of the disregarded intelligence. So it was not deemed safe to lay the blame where it clearly belonged.

    A fiction was devised. The problem was said to be that “no one was in charge of the intelligence community.” So the 9/11 Commission recommended that a new superstructure be created to coordinate the community (and let no one be held accountable).

    On July 22, 2004, immediately after the 9/11 Commission report was released, I found myself with 9/11 commissioner (and former senator from Washington) Slade Gorton in the BBC blue room in Washington. I had the temerity to remind him that it was far from the case that “no one was in charge” of the intelligence community; that Tenet had all the authority he needed.

    Gorton turned to me, smiled and said: “Of course we know all that; but we in the Commission and in Congress just had to do something so the American people would see that we were doing something.”

    Yuck.

    The national intelligence director, and the newly created bureaucracy, is what it is. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard can take the reins and make the community work. It will take a miracle; let’s hope for one.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 18:25

  • Food Additives Exposed: What Lies Beneath America's Food Supply
    Food Additives Exposed: What Lies Beneath America’s Food Supply

    Authored by Charles Cornish-Dale via The Epoch Times,

    Scientists at the University of Texas, Dallas recently discovered that a common food additive can make flesh translucent – literally. Applying a solution of the yellow food colouring tartrazine to the skin of live mice allowed scientists to see right through the skin, into the tissues beneath, potentially offering a simple and inexpensive alternative to conventional imaging technologies like ultrasound.

    Through the skin covering the skull, the scientists could look directly at blood vessels on the surface of the murine brain, and through the skin of the abdomen they observed internal organs and even the process known as peristalsis, the contractions that move food through the digestive passage.

    Pretty cool, huh?

    The physics behind this discovery aren’t actually all that complicated. Basically, when added to water, tartrazine changes the water’s refractive index—the way it bends light—so that it matches the refractive index of molecules like lipids in the skin, reducing the degree to which light scatters as it passes through the skin. Instead of scattering, the light travels straight and true, meaning you get to see what’s on the other side.

    The process is totally reversible. It only takes a few minutes, the tartrazine solution can be washed off, and when it is the effects disappear. What tartrazine is absorbed by the skin is metabolized and excreted through the urine.

    The researchers’ next goal is to test the solution on humans. Human skin is about 10 times thicker than a mouse’s, so it’s likely a larger dose will be needed, and it’s not clear if the delivery method—just rubbing the stuff on the skin—will be adequate.

    A miraculous discovery, for sure, and one that will no doubt benefit medicine. But it’s also a reminder of an unpleasant, dangerous truth about the food supply in America today: that it’s full of substances whose properties and safety we know virtually next to nothing about. There are thousands upon thousands of additives—texturizers, colorings, humectants, anti-fungals, anti-caking agents, preservatives—in Americans’ food that have never been independently tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or by scientists who aren’t employed by the companies that make those chemicals and add them to their food.

    As we’re discovering, many of those additives—the ones we know about and have begun to test—turn out to be extremely harmful, with links to every single chronic health condition you could care to name, from cancer and obesity to neurological and behavioral conditions like Alzheimer’s and autism. Tartrazine, which is found in Twinkies, Mountain Dew, candy, and cereals, among other foods, has been linked to hyperactivity in children and cancer. In the European Union, foods containing tartrazine must carry a warning label: “May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.”

    It sounds absurd—insane, actually—but it’s not a glitch or an organized system of corporate deception. We’re not talking about companies lying to regulators or acting beyond the boundaries of the law. No, this is all above board. The system even has a name. The FDA calls it “generally recognized as safe” or “GRAS” for short.

    The GRAS system was first introduced by the FDA in 1958 after the passage of the Food Additive Amendments, to “grandfather” through additives that were already used in food. The new additive regulations were intended to ensure ingredients capable of causing long-term harm never entered the food supply, but something very different happened. The GRAS designation mutated into a system that allowed companies to introduce and safety-test additives themselves without the FDA ever getting a look-in.

    This happened in large part because the FDA simply couldn’t keep up with demands from companies to test their new additives for the burgeoning processed-food category. So companies started testing additives themselves and adding them to their food products without any consultation with the regulator.

    Companies did this for decades, and instead of stepping in to assert its authority, the FDA did what any poorly staffed, hopelessly compromised organization would do: It simply chose to regularize the process, which was completed in 2016.

    According to one study, since 2000, there have been only 10 applications to the FDA for full approval of a new food additive, out of a total of 766 that have been added to the American food supply. The safety of the other 756 was self-determined by the manufacturers themselves, in secret.

    And so we’ve ended up in a situation where a company can produce a new food additive, decide it’s safe by whatever means it chooses, and then bring it to market without any scrutiny at all from the FDA. Like I say, nobody knows the exact amount, but a common estimate is that there are as many as 10,000 food additives in use in the United States, compared to around 2,000—all known quantities, by contrast—that are permitted in the EU.

    Thankfully, the FDA and the GRAS system are now firmly in the sights of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has been tasked by president-elect Trump with Making America Healthy Again.

    The “FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy said in a Tweet last month.

    He listed a whole range of compounds and treatments that he claims the FDA has suppressed, from psychedelics and peptides to “sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

    “If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you,” he continued.

    “1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”

    Strong stuff.

    Although Trump has yet to specify exactly what role Kennedy will play in the new administration, Kennedy himself has already made clear that other priorities, beside root-and-branch reform of agencies like the FDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Department of Agriculture, will include fluoridation of the water supply, vaccinations, environmental pollution, and processed food. This is a comprehensive program, and if Kennedy can make meaningful changes in all of these areas in four years, he will have done the American people and their health an enormous service.

    If anybody can get to the bottom of why Americans are so sick, it’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a man who has spent decades campaigning on environmental and health issues, and suffered personal loss and public vilification as a result—but still kept on going.

    He knows as much as anybody the corruption that lies beneath the façade of public health in America, and now, at long last, he’s in a position to do something about it.

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 17:40

  • "Why Are We Hiding It From The Public?" – Five Takeaways From Congressional UFO Hearing
    “Why Are We Hiding It From The Public?” – Five Takeaways From Congressional UFO Hearing

    On Wednesday a bipartisan group of lawmakers hosted a congressional hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), where witnesses testified on potential threats to national security from incursions into US airspace.

    Led by Nancy Mace (R-SC) and hosted by the House Oversight Committee, the hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth” featured former DoD official Luis Elizondo, former NASA Associate Administrator of Space Policy and Partnerships Michael Gold, journalist Michael Shellenberger, and retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet.

    The group discussed ongoing interest by congressional lawmakers into UAPs, as well as NASA’s potential role in reporting sightings, the origins of the alleged aircraft, and the Pentagon’s ongoing coverup into UAP documents and materials.

    “One of Congress’s most important responsibilities is oversight of the executive branch in general and the military and intelligence community in particular,” said Shellenberger, who think that the government is unconstitutionally usurping congressional authority by withholding the information.

    According to the Epoch Times, here are five takeaways from the hearing:

    1. Ongoing Bipartisan Interest From Congress

    The bipartisan UAP caucus—Mace, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), Rep. Anna Paulina (R-Fla.), Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.)—were joined by other House members on Wednesday for the nearly two and a half hour hearing.

    Mace, concerned that the U.S. government is withholding UAP materials it has officially compiled since the 1940s, said Congress and the public deserve to know what the government’s taxpayer-funded research on the topic has yielded, even if they are dead ends.

    “If we’re spending money on something that doesn’t exist, why are we spending the money? And if it does exist, why are we hiding it from the public?” Mace asked. She said national security is at stake if those objects are the technology of foreign adversaries.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The possibility that some UAP, including those in videos released by the Pentagon, could be foreign technology, was echoed by Ogles.

    “It is clear, from my experience and what I’ve seen, that there is something out there. The question is, ‘Is it ours, is it someone else’s, or is it otherworldly?’” Ogles asked.

    Any attempts to restrict Congress from gaining access to that information would be criminal, he added.

    The Pentagon’s All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, which is tasked with studying and cataloging UAP reports, has hundreds of sightings that remain “uncharacterized and unattributed” while displaying “unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said.

    “Now, we shouldn’t prejudge what they might be. I’m certainly not going to. We need evidence that we are detecting things, and we know that we don’t understand them, and this is worth investigating,” he added.

    2. Elizondo Testifies

    Elizondo, one of the key witnesses at the hearing, is famous for feeding the story of the Pentagon’s former UFO program to The New York Times in 2017.

    That article resulted in a resurgence of public interest and media reporting on UFOs, and was accompanied by several Department of Defense fighter jet videos that purportedly showed unidentified craft.

    One video, titled “GOFAST,” showed a tic-tac-shaped craft, which some have speculated to be an advanced drone. One of the pilots who followed the craft when it was spotted in 2004, Commander David Fravor, testified at last year’s congressional UAP hearing that he believed the craft was superior to both contemporary military tech and anything we are “looking to develop in the next 10-plus years.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Elizondo said on Wednesday that some UAP are “advanced technologies not made by our government or any other government” but that both the United States and its adversaries are in possession of “UAP technologies.”

    “I believe we are in the midst of a multi-decade secretive arms race, one funded by misallocated taxpayer dollars and hidden from our elected representatives and oversight bodies,” he said.

    Elizondo has claimed since 2017 that he was previously the director of the Pentagon’s 2009 UFO program, which was officially called the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Pentagon has said this program, sometimes referred to as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), officially ended in 2012, but that an unofficial group of Pentagon researchers used the AATIP name moving forward. Elizondo says he was the director of AATIP.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP while assigned to OUSD(I) [Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence],” Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough told The Epoch Times.

    3. NASA’s Role in UAP Reporting

    Gold, who was also a member of NASA’s UAP Independent Study Team, told Congress that commercial airline pilots need an official database to report potential UAP sightings. He suggested that his former employer’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a good place to start.

    “This system, which is administered by NASA and funded by the FAA, provides a confidential means for reporting of safety violations in a voluntary and non-punitive manner,” Gold said. “Over 47 years, the ASRS has collected nearly 2 million reports. ASRS is the perfect tool to collect UAP data, which could then be collated by NASA and shared with the public at large.”

    NASA is already one of the most respected U.S. agencies, Gold added, which gives it a unique position in reestablishing the public’s trust in the government and UAP.

    “For relatively little cost and effort, NASA could create an AI [artificial intelligence] or ML [machine learning] algorithm that could search the agency’s archives for anomalous phenomena.”

    4. Aliens, Drones, or Something Else?

    While this year’s UAP hearing was lighter on speculations of non-human intelligence, the topic was still addressed.

    Mace probed Elizondo about purported UAP crash retrieval programs in the U.S. government, a central topic of discussion in last year’s hearing. Elizondo answered in the affirmative when asked if those programs were “designed to identify and reverse engineer alien craft.”

    “In regards to these aircraft being piloted by whatever they might be—non-human biologics—would you agree that it’s likely that they are being piloted by some mind-body connection?” Luna asked.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Elizondo, who emphasized that he was more interested in the objects’ flight characteristics than speculating on their origin, said it was safe to presume intelligent control of some kind because they “seem to anticipate [pilots’] maneuvers.”

    Garcia asked all four witnesses what could be the source of UAP. Both Gallaudet and Elizondo said nonhuman, higher intelligence, but Shellenberger and Gold said they don’t know.

    “I think we must be modest in our assumptions that we’re looking for intelligence that could be biological. It might not,” Gold said. “But I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all.”

    The Pentagon said earlier this year, even among its unsolved cases, “if more and better quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.” Those could be drones, satellites, or even meteorological events, it said.

    5. The Pentagon’s Role in UFOs/UAP

    The witnesses and lawmakers present agreed that the Pentagon has been “over-classifying” documents and materials related to UAP sightings, which sometimes get labeled “top secret” and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

    “For what purpose is the federal government over-classifying? Because that’s what they’re doing. They’re over-classifying and forbidding the public from getting access to this.” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said.

    Elizondo offered two explanations. For one, it could be a holdover policy from the Cold War, when the United States didn’t want to reveal to the Soviets our awareness of foreign military technology or disclose our own. The Pentagon might also be uninterested in revealing information related to problems—including foreign incursions into U.S. airspace—they lack answers for, Elizondo added.

    Shellenberger mentioned government researcher John Greenewald Jr., who runs The Black Vault, an online database of more than 3 million government documents obtained through FOIA requests.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Greenewald says that the government has often denied the existence of specific UAP records, only to admit they exist after he files a FOIA appeal. But in one case, the Navy responded that the videos contain sensitive information, are classified, and exempt from disclosure.

    The Navy, for instance, falls back on its UAP Security Classification Guide for denying many FOIA requests, Greenewald told The Epoch Times. The guide says any UAP information obtained or developed through the use of classified sources or methods will receive the highest classification level applicable. The Pentagon has a similar policy.

    When the Pentagon declined to release video footage from U.S. fighter jets shooting down suspected UFOs over Alaska in 2023, the Defense Department said the footage remained classified.

    However, that same year the Pentagon released videos of a Russian fighter jet forcing down a U.S. MQ-9 reaper drone. Greenewald pointed out that all MQ-9 Reaper drone footage of UAP remains classified “so it doesn’t reveal drone capabilities.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “When you get into over secrecy, over classification, them not wanting to be open and honest about things—whether it be about UAP or anything for that matter—the public trust erodes,” Greenewald said.

    In response to a request for comment from The Epoch Times, the Department of Defense said it takes public interest in UAP seriously.

    “The department is fully committed to openness and accountability to Congress and the American people, which it must balance with its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources, and methods,” Gough said.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 17:20

  • VDH: Restoring Deterrence Will Prevent Endless Wars
    VDH: Restoring Deterrence Will Prevent Endless Wars

    Authored by Victor Davis Hanson,

    On January 3, 2020, the Trump administration conducted a drone strike near Baghdad International Airport, killing Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani.

    Soleimani had a long record of waging surrogate wars against Americans, especially during the Iraq conflict and its aftermath.

    After the Trump cancellation of the Iran Deal, followed by U.S. sanctions, Soleimani reportedly stepped up violence against regional American bases—most of which Trump himself ironically wished to remove.

    A few days later, Iran staged a performance-art retaliatory strike against Americans in Iraq and Syria, assuming Trump had no desire for a wider Middle East war.

    So, Iran launched 12 missiles that hit two U.S. airbases in Iraq. Supposedly, Tehran had warned the Trump administration of the impending attacks that killed no Americans. Later reports, however, suggested that some Americans suffered concussions, while more damage was done to the bases than was initially disclosed.

    Nonetheless, this Iranian interlude seemed to reflect Trump’s agenda of avoiding “endless wars” in the Middle East while restoring deterrence that prevented, not prompted, full-scale conflicts.

    Yet in a second Trump administration, rethreading the deterrence needle without getting into major wars may become far more challenging. The world of today is far more dangerous than when Trump left in 2021.

    An inept Biden administration has utterly destroyed U.S. deterrence abroad through both actual and symbolic disasters:

    • the Chinese dressing down of U.S. diplomats in Anchorage;

    • the humiliating skedaddle from Afghanistan;

    • the brazen flight of a Chinese spy balloon across the U.S.;

    • the invasion of Ukraine by Russia;

    • the October 7, 2023 massacre of 1200 Israelis;

    • the serial Houthi attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea;

    • the visible restraint of Israeli from fully replying to Iranian missile attacks on its homeland;

    • and renewed bellicosity on the part of both North Korea and China toward American allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

    Of course, a second-term Trump must radically reform the Pentagon and beef up the military while warning enemies of the consequences to follow from any unwise aggression.

    But if opponents believe such admonitions remain only vocal threats, then empty verbiage surely will erode deterrence further—such as Joe Biden’s serial and empty braggadocio, “Don’t!”

    Biden’s past theatrical finger-shaking translated into aggressors like Putin going into Ukraine, Iran sending missiles into Israel, and the Houthis serially hitting shipping in the Red Sea.

    Given the past messes of the Iraqi, Libyan, and Syrian interventions, and the catastrophic Biden humiliation in Afghanistan, Trump in 2024 is much more emphatic about the need to avoid such overseas dead-end entanglements or even the gratuitous use of force that historically can sometimes lead to tit-for-tat entanglements.

    Still, Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance as vice president, along with Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Jr., and Tucker Carlson as close advisors, coupled with the announcements that former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and prior UN Ambassador Nikki Haley will not be in the administration, may be misinterpreted by scheming foreign adversaries as proof of Trump neo-isolationism.

    Moreover, the U.S. is battered by an unsustainable $37 trillion national debt and a nonexistent southern border that saw 12 million illegal aliens enter with impunity.

    So, the use of force abroad is now often seen in a zero-sum fashion as coming at the expense of unaddressed American needs at home.

    Moreover, a woke, manpower-short military has not achieved strategic advantages from wars abroad, while disparaging and alienating the very working-class recruits who disproportionately fight and die in them.

    Recently, even as President-elect Trump’s inner circle emphasized an end to endless conflicts, Trump warned Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin not to escalate his attacks against Ukraine. Yet that advice was followed by a Russian massive drone onslaught against civilian Ukrainian targets.

    Putin no doubt wishes to encourage American enemies to test Trump’s deterrent rhetoric against his campaign’s domestic promises to mind America’s own business at home.

    Is there a way to square the deterrence circle?

    Trump will have to speak clearly and softly while carrying a club. And for the first few months of his administration, he will be tested as never before to make it clear to Iran and its terrorist surrogates, China, North Korea, and Russia that aggression against US interests will be swiftly and quietly met with disproportionate and overwhelming repercussions.

    Yet Trump will likely have to rely on drones, missiles, and air strikes and not on major engagements, to deter enemies from aggression—and his domestic critics from claiming he turned into a globalist interventionist.

    He is not.

    Trump remains a Jacksonian. But such deterrence entails warning from time to time the reckless and adventurous abroad that our allies have no better friend than America and our adversaries no worse enemy.

    In other words, Trump must remind Americans only by periodically deterring enemies can he prevent endless wars.

    Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 17:00

  • Election Week Saw Huge Money-Market Fund Inflows, Bank Deposits Rise, Loan Volumes Shrink
    Election Week Saw Huge Money-Market Fund Inflows, Bank Deposits Rise, Loan Volumes Shrink

    Money market funds saw massive inflows for the second straight week (+$81.6BN), pushing the total assets under management to a new record high of $6.66TN…

    Source: Bloomberg

    And while MM funds surged, total US bank deposits dropped modestly (-$7.5BN on a seasonally-adjusted basis)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Though interestingly, on a non-seasonally-adjusted basis, total deposits rose by a modest $3.7BN during the week ending 11/6 (which included the election)…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Excluding foreign deposits, US banks saw domestic deposits rise on both an SA (+$12BN) and NSA (+$16.7BN) basis…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Loan volumes shrank significantly during election week…

    Source: Bloomberg

    Finally, the decoupling between bank reserves at The Fed and the total US equity market capitalization has reached an extreme…

    Source: Bloomberg

    With liquidity being drawn down from The Fed’s reverse repo facility at a pace, we wonder how long that spread can be maintained.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 16:41

  • The Great Splainin' Cometh
    The Great Splainin’ Cometh

    Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

    “The meltdown has gotten so heavy liberal bureaucrats are ready to form antigovernment militias and fretting about black helicopters”

    – Max Blumenthal

    “Many Democrats were considering how to navigate a dark future, with the party unable to stop Mr. Trump from carrying out a right-wing transformation of American government. Others turned inward, searching for why the nation rejected them. They spoke about misinformation and the struggle to communicate the party’s vision in a diminished news environment inundated with right-wing propaganda”

    – The New York Times

    In July 27, 1794, the non-insane members of the Convention, or national legislative body in Paris, suddenly turned on the rabid Jacobin leader Maximillian Robespierre and overthrew his ruling tyrannical bunch — who had killed 40,000 of their fellow countrymen in the paranoid orgy known as The Reign of Terror.

    The next day, Robespierre rode the tumbrel to his own appointment with “the national razor” and the Thermidorian Reaction was on!

    By the way, in one of their many acts disordering French society, the Jacobins had changed the calendar, renamed all the months, and changed the weeks from seven to ten days (to eliminate Sundays as a holy day of rest in their anti-church crusade). Thus, Thermidor, the month of mid-summer.

    This was but a small part of their proto-communist agenda, but you see in it the flavor of their radical extremism.

    The Woke Democrats of recent times were our Jacobins, and the election of November 5, 2024, marks the kick-off of America’s Thermidorian Reaction. The crazies have been overthrown and our country awaits a restoration of norms in culture and law. No more sexualizing of children, no more flood of criminal mutts across the US border, no more furtive censorship of public speech, no more creative lawfare, no more women on the battlefield, no more “anti-racist” racism in the workplace, no more intel takeover of everyone’s private life. . . you get the picture.

    Many abiding mysteries about how this happened — even of what exactly did happen — remain to be sorted out by law and by history. That is probably because so much of the Woke Revolution was provoked by state-of-the-art mind-fuckery out of the giant intel blob’s psy-ops lab.

    This blob, you understand, had grown to be a colossal racketeering operation with many branches and ever-spreading roots, and it cast its spells over the populace to protect these interests — which, of course, involved huge revenue streams.

    Perhaps its most potent spell was the manipulation of women’s emotion, harnessing female psychodrama as the propellant for mass social discord. In a nation of absent fathers, damaged children, and broken male-female relations, Donald Trump was painted as the ultimate archetypal tyrant Daddy figure to deflect the public’s attention from the actual tyranny growing under the US intel blob and its Globalist sidekicks. Case in point: RussiaGate, a long-running hysteria of fabricated accusations, a fabulous medley of scurrilous gossip, engineered at the highest levels of our government for the express purpose of wrecking Mr. Trump’s first term in office. “Witch hunt” was exactly the right term.

    Many more psychodramas followed, all of them artificially cooked up by various branches of the blob: impeachments #1 and #2; the FBI-induced J-6 riot and the fake House J-6 inquiry that followed; the roll-out of DOJ-inspired fake criminal and civil cases that tied-up Mr. Trump in courtrooms through the year, and most especially the hostile news media’s presentation of all these things as one great big everlasting frenzy of on-screen women shrieking at the Daddy-figure, Donald Trump, like thirteen-year-old girls in fugues of hormonal disruption.

    The voters, subject to years of trips laid on them, were eventually able to see through all this induced psychodrama as to how they were being manipulated, and on November 5, they finally revolted. Their quandary was probably epitomized by the absurdity of watching men in women’s sports — spiking volleyballs on the girls’ heads, bashing them on the lacrosse field, humiliating them in the swim lanes — and, more to the point, being helpless to do anything about it, because the officials in-charge under “Joe Biden” said it must be, no matter what you think and feel about what you are seeing.

    The New York Times, your field-guide to blob-think, is warning its dwindling readership of psychodrama addicts that Donald Trump will now take out his “grievances” on the noble, self-sacrificing bureaucracy that manages things so well in this land. As usual, The Times misleads and misinforms. These are the grievances of the nation that has seen its law and its culture twisted into new orders of wickedness that leave daily life in the USA perverted, dishonored, and grotesquefied.

    So now Mr. Trump has picked a cabinet that scares the blob to death — for good reason. They are aiming to systematically disarm and disassemble the blob. They are a team of serious and intelligent warriors and they mean business, in particular Gaetz, Gabbard, Kennedy, Ratcliffe, and Homan, with Elon and Vivek riding shotgun. (A new FBI Director has not yet been named.) You must wonder how the blob is planning to defend itself, for it surely will resist.

    Many of us believe that the two recent assassination attempts against the now-President-elect were blob-sponsored operations. Everybody expects they’ll try again. But it’s possible that the American system still has enough mojo to self-correct. A whole lot of public officials have a whole lot of ‘splainin’ to do. It looks like they will be compelled to now, including the public health officers who brought us Covid-19 and the mandated, ineffective-and-harmful mRNA vaccines.

    There’s every reason to believe that the ‘splainin’ can take place in correct proceedings according to law: hearings, grand juries, courts. We do have actual laws against racketeering, abuse of power, election fraud, bribery, malicious prosecution, sedition, treason, and conspiracy to commit all those crimes. Pay attention: all that is distinct from lawfare, which is making-up crimes, faking crimes, and faking procedure. You are going to see a demonstration of how law differs from lawfare. It ought to have a salutary effect on our national esprit. And that should motivate us to get on with the job of repairing the damage done to our country.

    Tyler Durden
    Fri, 11/15/2024 – 16:20

Digest powered by RSS Digest