German Police Dispense Violence To Anti-Lockdown Protestors

German citizens against lockdowns, face masks and social distancing are taking to the streets by the tens of thousands, only to be met by violence from riot police with water canons and pepper spray. The war against reason is turning ugly. ⁃ TN Editor

German citizens protesting in Berlin on Nov. 18, 2020 against new more restrictive coronavirus lockdowns, masking and social distancing restrictions were dispersed by police forces using water cannons and pepper spray on the crowd of about 10,000. Whistling, chanting and banging saucepans while holding signs, most of the demonstrators were not wearing masks or social distancing, which the police said required them to engage in action to clear the streets of the people failing to obey social distancing regulations.

As helicopters flew above the crowd, some demonstrators threw fireworks, flares and other objects in response to being told to disperse by more than 2,000 police officers, including federal officers and others brought in from nine German states and several hundred protesters were arrested. A smaller demonstration in Frankfurt of about 600 people was also broken up by police using water cannons.

In Berlin, the protesters that included families with children once again gathered near the 18th century Brandenburg Gate, an iconic symbol of Germany’s reunification. The Brandenburg Gate, which is located near the Reichstag building that houses the German parliament (Bundestag), was the scene of massive public protests in August 2020 against coronavirus lockdowns and suspension of civil liberties.

Law Gives Broader Power to Federal Government

The thousands of Germans who took to the streets last week were protesting a proposed amendment to the Infection Protection Act that would make it more difficult to legally challenge federal restrictions on autonomy and freedom of assembly that include store, restaurant, stadium and other public venue closings. Social distancing regulations primarily have been enforced at the state and local levels since government officials declared a coronavirus pandemic emergency last winter.

Holding signs that said “Pandemic of Lies,” “Infection Protection Law = Dictatorship,” “Truth, Freedom, Don’t Touch Our Constitution” and “No forced vaccinations,” the Irish Times reported that the protesters and several conservative politicians are opposed to the new amendment because it gives the current administration broader authority to impose “necessary protective measures” during the pandemic emergency declaration. Some have said it is reminiscent of the Enabling Act of 1933 that gave sweeping power to Hitler’s administration during the Nazi takeover of Germany’s government before World War II.

Read full story here…




Stop Technocracy: Americans Must Rebel Against Lockdowns, Mandated Masks, Forced Vaccinations

The existential threat to the world, including America, is the tyranny of Technocracy. As the twisted and fraudulent narrative takes on a life of its own, only citizens can throw off the intended yoke of Scientific Dictatorship. ⁃ TN Editor

With the presidential election highly contested and the mainstream media hyping the rising infection numbers, the public is now facing important questions regarding the future of the pandemic response. Some states have decided to unilaterally introduce “executive orders” to restrict citizen movements, business openings and public activities.

Anthony Fauci is on the news constantly, calling for families to cancel Thanksgiving and Christmas and telling Americans to just “do what we are told”. The media is generally trying to drum up fear in the minds of the populace and paint images of plague and death everywhere. If Biden does actually end up in the White House, a federalized and national high level lockdown is on the table starting in January.

In April of this year I published an article titled ‘Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society’, which outlined a social engineering model put forward by globalists at MIT and the Imperial College of London which I called “wave theory”. The model essentially works like this:

Governments must use the pandemic as a rationale for “waves” of restrictive lockdowns, followed by controlled re-openings of the economy and of normal human activity. Globalists claim that this will “slow” the spread of the coronavirus and save lives. However, they also openly admit that these cycles of closures and openings have other uses.

Over time, the citizenry becomes acclimated to governmental intrusion in their everyday lives, and they get used to the idea of bureaucracy telling them what they are not allowed to do when it comes to the simplest activities. The system thus bottlenecks all human interactions to the point that we are constantly asking for permission. We become slaves to the Covid response.

As globalist Gideon Lichfield from MIT stated in his article ‘We’re Not Going Back To Normal’:

Ultimately, however, I predict that we’ll restore the ability to socialize safely by developing more sophisticated ways to identify who is a disease risk and who isn’t, and discriminating—legally—against those who are.

…one can imagine a world in which, to get on a flight, perhaps you’ll have to be signed up to a service that tracks your movements via your phone. The airline wouldn’t be able to see where you’d gone, but it would get an alert if you’d been close to known infected people or disease hot spots. There’d be similar requirements at the entrance to large venues, government buildings, or public transport hubs. There would be temperature scanners everywhere, and your workplace might demand you wear a monitor that tracks your temperature or other vital signs. Where nightclubs ask for proof of age, in future they might ask for proof of immunity—an identity card or some kind of digital verification via your phone, showing you’ve already recovered from or been vaccinated against the latest virus strains.”

Note that Lichfield suggested that in order to participate in the normal economy you might need to show verification that you have been “vaccinated against the latest virus strains”. In other words, the elites expect there to be many more viral events or mutations AFTER Covid 19 has run its course, and the restrictions and controls we see today are meant to continue, possibly FOREVER.

The reality is that the wave model is not a very practical plan for stopping viral spread, but it is a perfect method for conditioning people to submit to a high level of control over their personal lives that they never would have accepted otherwise. The Covid response has also been heralded by elites at the World Economic Forum as a perfect “opportunity” to initiate what they call the “Great Reset”. The reset is a plan to deconstruct what’s left of the free market capitalist system, introduce carbon controls in the name of the global warming fraud, institute a global cashless monetary system, and finally, move humanity into what they call a “shared economy” in which the average person is no longer allowed to own private property of any kind and is completely dependent on the system for their basic necessities.

Of course, such a complex system of “solutions” (dominance) over every individual would need to be managed in a highly centralized way. Meaning, global governance by the elitist establishment would be the end result. Naturally….the globalists would reluctantly take the reins of power for “the greater good”.

This is the bigger picture, the underlying threat at the core of the lockdowns and Covid laws. That said, there are also numerous arguments based on logic and evidence as to why there is no reason for people to submit to such restrictions. Let’s outline them in a simple list:

The Coronavirus Kills Less Than 1% Of The People It Infects

Medical studies in the US indicate that the coronavirus deaths rate for citizens NOT living in nursing homes has been holding well below 1% on average. The largest percentage of deaths by far in the US has been in nursing homes among elderly people with preexisting conditions. People in long term care facilities make up 8% of Covid infection cases but they are 45% of all covid deaths.

Pneumonia alone kills around 50,000 Americans each year according to the CDC, and that’s with vaccinations, yet, we are supposed to panic and hand over all our freedoms in the name of stopping a disease which affects a tiny percentage of the population? This is why the media and governments have decided to hyperfocus on infection numbers rather than deaths. The death numbers do not warrant the amount of panic the establishment is trying to foment.

Lockdowns Destroy The Economy

It’s basic math and finance; the small business sector of the US economy is dying. Small businesses make up around 50% of US employment. The Covid bailout money, handled by international banks like JP Morgan, did not get to the vast majority of small businesses that were supposed to receive it. Those businesses that did get bailouts are still on the verge of closure or bankruptcy. Any further lockdowns will be the final nail in the coffin for the US economy, except for major corporations which are enjoying the lion’s share of stimulus cash.

How many lives will be damaged or lost due to poverty and economic collapse if the current trend continues? I suspect far more than any lives lost because of Covid.

Why is no one in the mainstream talking about the most practical solution to the pandemic? The small percentage of people who are most at risk can STAY HOME and take precautions as necessary, while the rest of us get on with our lives. Why are we being ordered to do the exact opposite just to make less than 1% of the population feel safer? How is this logical, reasonable or scientific? The only answer that makes sense is that the lockdown response is about control, not saving lives.

State Governors Have No Authority To Take Away Your Civil Liberties, And Neither Does The President

Restrictions based on executive orders have no legal authority under the Constitution. They are color of law, not true law. Laws are debated and passed by state legislatures, not by state governors. Executive orders only apply to state employees and have no bearing on the citizenry.

Leftists and statists argue that during a national crisis the governor has emergency powers and states can do whatever they want. This is false. Under the constitution and the Bill of Rights, state governors do not get to proclaim a national emergency based on their personal opinion and then declare themselves dictators in response. Any “laws” exerted because of such a process are therefor null and void; they are meaningless.

If the states have the ability to do whatever they want without oversight, then they would be able to bring back Jim Crow laws (among other things). Do leftists support that idea as well? If the federal government and the president have the power to violate the Bill of Rights during a national emergency, then Donald Trump has the authority to bring in martial law across the country because of leftist riots. Do leftists agree with that outcome?

It is interesting to me that the political left in particular is so keen on defending the idea of states and governors having the power to unilaterally enforce pandemic restrictions without oversight or checks and balances. Yet, they have been aggressively opposed to state powers in the past when they had a Democratic president like Obama in office. The left has also been staunchly opposed to executive orders applied by Donald Trump, but they applaud the idea of executive orders on lockdowns being instituted by Biden.

So, leftists support unilateral state power only when it works in favor of their agenda, and they support unilateral federal and presidential power only when it works in favor of their agenda. What a surprise…

The bottom line is this: State government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. Federal government powers do not supersede the Bill of Rights. NO ONE has the legal power to take away your inherent liberties. Those that claim otherwise have something to gain from your enslavement.

Mask Laws Are Unscientific

The majority of masks being used by the public today are cloth masks. Not even the CDC recommends the use of cloth masks for their own employees or medical workers. They only recommend N95 masks. They also admit that cloth masks are much less effective at preventing contact with the virus. Yet, the CDC supports the enforcement of cloth masks for the public.

On top of that, some states and countries with the most stringent mask laws continue to see huge spikes in coronavirus infections. For example, New York has been one of the most tyrannical enforcers of mask laws and lockdowns in the US, but in November the state has witnessed extensive infection increases. California, Michigan and Illinois have also seen dramatic infection spikes this month despite hard enforcement of masks. So, where is the science?

It would appear that masks are a placebo; if they actually worked, then the states with the most aggressive enforcement should be seeing a dramatic downturn in cases, not exponential increases.

Furthermore, why are many states and countries trying to force citizens to wear masks outside in open air and sunlight when viruses cannot survive in such conditions? UV light from the sun is nature’s sterilizer, but no one in the mainstream or in government acknowledges this scientific fact. Again, this shows that mask laws are about control, not about science or saving lives.

Read full story here…




Ron Paul: There Is No Vaccine For Tyranny

Tyranny takes liberty over any excuse, but never, ever gives it back. Collectively and individually, government leaders have turned the the mechanisms of governance against the American people. Scientific dictatorship, aka Technocracy, is the authoritarianism we face today. ⁃ TN Editor

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO ‘s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.

Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!

Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.

Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.

Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.

The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.

Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.

Read full story here…




Technocracy Vs. The Republic: The Fight For Our Future

Because the pandemic is being used to destroy constitutional rights and especially the First Amendment, the very mechanism of citizen resistance is disappearing. If you cannot communicate, you cannot resist. Taking over all public media and stomping free speech has always been the first order of business in previous revolutions. ⁃ TN Editor

People living in the western world are in the greatest fight for the future of pluralist and republican forms of governance since the rise and fall of fascism 75 years ago. As then, society had to be built up from a war. Today’s war has been an economic war of the oligarchs against the republic, and it increasingly appears that the coronavirus pandemic is being used, on the political end, as a massive coup against pluralist society. We are being confronted with this ‘great reset’, alluding to post-war construction. But for a whole generation people have already been living under an ever-increasing austerity regimen. This is a regimen that can only be explained as some toxic combination of the systemic inevitabilities of a consumer-driven society on the foundation of planned obsolescence, and the never-ending greed and lust for power which defines whole sections of the sociopathic oligarchy.

Recently we saw UK PM Boris Johnson stand in front of a ‘Build Back Better’ sign, speaking to the need for a ‘great reset’. ‘Build Back Better’ happens to be Joe Biden’s campaign slogan, which raises many other questions for another time. But, to what extent are the handlers who manage ‘Joe Biden’, and those managing ‘Boris Johnson’ working the same script?

The more pertinent question is to ask: in whose interest is this ‘great reset’ being carried out? Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers upon the theory and practice of austerity. Certainly it cannot be left to those who have built their careers as puppets of a morally decaying oligarchy.

What Johnson calls the ‘Great Reset’, Biden calls the ‘Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution & Environmental Justice’. Certainly the coming economy cannot be left to Boris Johnson or Joe Biden.

How is it that now Boris Johnson speaks publicly of a ‘great reset’, whereas just months ago when those outside the ruling media paradigm used this phrase, it was censured by corporate Atlanticist media as being conspiratorial in nature? This is an excellent question posed by Neil Clark.

And so we have by now all read numerous articles in the official press talking about how economic life after coronavirus will never be the same as it was before. Atlanticist press has even run numerous opinion articles talking about how this may cut against globalization – a fair point, and one which many thinking people by and large agree with.

Yet they have set aside any substantive discussion about what exists in lieu of globalization, and what the economy looks like in various parts of the world if it is not globalized. We have consistently spoken of multipolarity, a term that in decades past was utilized frequently in western vectors, in the sphere of geopolitics and international relations. Now there is some strange ban on the term, and so we are now bereft of a language with which to have an honest discussion about the post-globalization paradigm.

Technocracy or Pluralism? A Fight Against the Newspeak

Until now, we have only been given a steady diet of distancing, of lockdown provisions, quarantining, track and trace, and we have forgotten entirely about the fact that all of this was only supposed to be a two or three-week long exercise to flatten the curve. And now the truth is emerging that what is being planned is a new proposal being disguised as a ‘great reset’.

One of the large problems in discussing the ‘great reset’ is that a false dichotomy has arisen around it. Either one wants things to be how they were before and without changes to the status quo, or they promote this ‘great reset’. Unfortunately, Clark in his RT article falls into this false dichotomy, and perhaps only for expedience sake in discussing some other point, he does not challenge the inherent problems in ‘how things were before’. In truth, we would be surprised if Clark did not appreciate what we are going to propose.

What we propose is that we must oppose their ‘new normal’ ‘great reset’, while also understanding the inherent problems of what had been normalized up until Covid.

The way things were before was also a tremendous problem, and yet now it only seems better in comparison to the police state-like provisions we’ve encountered throughout the course of politicizing the spectre of this ‘pandemic’.

Oddly this politicization is based in positive cases (and not hospitalizations) ostensibly linked to the novel coronavirus. Strangely, we are told to ‘listen to the consensus science’ even as these very institutions consist of politically arrived at appointments. Certainly science is not about consensus, but about challenging assumptions, repeatability and a lively debate between disagreeing scientists with relatively equal qualifications. As Kuhn explains in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is always evolving, and by definition potentially overturns consensus paradigms. This is a debate we have not seen, and this fact by itself represents an illiberal cancer growing on an already defective pluralist society – ironically, all flying under the banner of liberalism.

Decisions that a society decides to take should be driven by reason, prudence, and justice. What is or isn’t scientific plays a role, but cannot be the deciding factor. Science clearly says that we may eliminate cross-walk injuries by banning street-crossing or by banning driving, but what policy makers must do is account for the need to have both cars and crossing the street, in deciding how – if it’s even possible – to reduce or eliminate such injuries. Science is only one part of this equation.

But isn’t economics also a science? Is sociology not a science? What about psychology and psychiatry – as in the known effects of social isolation and, say, suicide prevention? What about housing and urban planning? The great sociologist Emile Durkheim explains how these are sciences – they adopt and apply the scientific method in their work. Universities have been awarding doctoral degrees in these sciences for a century or more, do these expert opinions not count when managing a public catastrophe?

It is, and always has been, a political and politicized position to listen to some scientists, and not others.

And so what of our term ‘reset’? Indeed, it is itself misleading, and we would propose it is intentionally so if we understand Orwell’s critique of the use of language – newspeak – in technocratic oligarchies.

A ‘reset’ textually refers to going back to something once known, erasing defects or contradictions which arose along the way, which carries with it the familiar, and something we had previously all agreed to. A ‘reset’ by definition means going back to how things were before – not just recently, but before at some point farther back. Its definition is literally contrary to how Boris Johnson means it in his shocking public statement at the start of October.

The term ‘reset’ was therefore arrived with extraordinary planning and thoughtfulness, with the intent to persuade [manipulate] the public. It simultaneously straddles two unique concepts, and bundles them together at once into a single term in a manner that reduces nuance and complexity and therefore also reduces thinking. It does so while appealing to the implicit notion of the term that it relates to a past consensus agreement.

If understood as we are told to understand it, we must hold two mutually contradictory notions at the same time – we are incongruously told that this reset must effectively restore society to how it was at some point before because things can never be how they were at any time before. Only within the paradigm of this vicious newspeak could anything ever have the public thinking that such a textual construction makes any bit of sense.

What are Our Real Options? Whose Reset?

Those who understand that this ‘reset’ is not a reset but rather a whole new proposal on the entire organization of society, but being done through oligarchical methods and without the sort of mandate required in a society governed by laws and not men, are – as we have said – reluctant to admit that a great change is indeed necessary.

Rather, we must understand that the underlying catastrophic economic mechanisms which are forcing this great change exist independently of the coronavirus, and exist independently of the particular changes which the oligarchs promoting their version of a ‘reset’ (read: new proposals) would like to see.

You see, the people and the oligarchs are locked into a single system together. In the long-term, it seems as if the oligarchs are looking for solutions to change that fact, and effect a final solution that grants them an entirely break-away civilization. But at this moment, that is not the case. Yet this system cannot carry forward as it has been, and the Coronavirus presents a reason at once both mysterious in its timing and also profound in its implications, to push forward a new proposal.

We believe that technology is quickly arriving at a point where the vast majority of human beings will be considered redundant. If the technocracy wants to create a walled civilization, and leave the rest of humanity to manage their own lives along some agrarian, mediaeval mode of production, there may indeed be benefits to those who live along agrarian lines. But based in what we know about psychopathy, and the tendency of that among those who govern, such an amicable solution is likely not in the cards.

That is why the anti-lockdown protests are so critically important to endorse. This is precisely because the lockdown measures are used to ban mass public demonstrations, a critical part of pushing public policy in the direction of the interests of the general public. A whole part of the left has been compromised, and rolled out to fight imaginary fascists, by which they mean anyone with conventional social views which predate May of 1968. All the while the actual plutocrats unleash a new system of oligarchical control which, for most, has not been hitherto contemplated except by relatively obscure political scientists, futurists, and science fiction authors.

Certainly the consumerist economic system (sometimes called ‘capitalism’ by the left), which is based in both globalized supply chains but also planned obsolescence, is no longer feasible. In truth, this relied upon a third-world to be a source of both raw materials and cheaper labor. The plus here is that this ‘developing world’ has largely now developed. But that means they will be needing their own raw materials, and their own middle-classes have driven up their own cost of labor. Globalization was based in some world before development, where the real dynamic is best explained as imperialism, and so it makes sense that this system is a relic of the past, and indeed ought to be.

It increasingly appears that the ‘Coronavirus pandemic’, was secondary to the foregone economic crisis which we were told accompanied it. Rather, it seems that the former came into being to explain-away the latter.

Another world is possible, but it is one which citizens fight for. In the U.S., England, Scotland, Ireland, and Germany, there have already been rather large anti-lockdown demonstrations. These, as we have explained, are not just against lockdown but are positively pushing to assert the right to public and political association, to public and political speech, and the redressing of grievances. This is a fundamental right for citizens in any republic where there is any sort of check on the oligarchy.

We have written on the kind of world that is possible, in our piece from April 2020 titled: “Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity”. That lays out what is possible, and what the problems of pre-corona system were, in economic terms more than political. Here we discuss the problems of globalization-based supply chain security in a multipolar world, and the larger problem of planned obsolescence, especially in light of 3D printing, automation, and the internet of things.

We posed the philosophical question as to whether it is justified to have a goods-production system based upon both the guaranteed re-sale of the same type of goods due to planned obsolescence and the ‘work guarantees’ that came with it. In short, do we live to work or to we work to live? And with the 4th industrial revolution looming, we posed the question of what will happen after human workers are no longer required.

Pluralist society is the compromise outcome of a ceasefire in the class war between the oligarchy and the various other classes that compromise the people, at large. Largely idealized and romantic ideas that form the basis of the liberal-democratic ideology (as well as classical fascism) are used to explain how it is the oligarchy that is so very committed to that arrangement of pluralism, and that this very arrangement is the product of their benevolence, and not the truth: that it was the fight put up by common people to fight for a more just future. No doubt there have been benevolent oligarchs who really believed in the liberal ideology, of which fascism is one of its more radical products. But the view that the class struggle can be acculturated or legislated into non-existence is similar to believing that the law of gravity can be ruled unlawful in a court.

Perhaps we have forgotten what it takes, and perhaps things just have not gotten bad enough. Decreases in testosterone levels in the population may be leading to a dangerous moment where vigorous defiance to injustice is much less possible. Critical now is to avoid any artificial means to opiate ourselves into thinking things are better than they are, whether by way of anti-depressants or other self-medication. Only with a clear assessment of the real situation on the ground can we forge the necessary strategy.

The great political crisis now is that a pandemic is being used to justify an end-run around constitutional rights, an end-run around pluralist society, and so the vehicle – the mechanism – that the general public might use to fight for their version of a ‘reset’ is on the verge of disappearing.

In many ways this means that now is the final moment. We ask – whose great reset, ours or theirs?

Read full story here…




Google Slapped With Sweeping Antitrust Case By DoJ

There is no doubt that Google exercises monopoly power and control over the Internet. The Department of Justice has finally decided to act, and several states have already decided to join the lawsuit. This opens the door to other anti-trust suits against other tech giants like Facebook and Twitter. ⁃ TN Editor

The Justice Department on Tuesday sued Google for antitrust violations, alleging that it abused its dominance in online search and advertising to stifle competition and harm consumers.

The lawsuit marks the government’s most significant act to protect competition since its groundbreaking case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago. It could be an opening salvo ahead of other major government antitrust actions, given ongoing investigations of major tech companies including Apple, Amazon and Facebook at both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

“Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General Jeff Rosen told reporters. “It has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”

Antitrust cases in the technology industry have to move quickly, he said. Otherwise “we could lose the next wave of innovation.”

The Justice Department isn’t seeking specific changes in Google’s structure or other remedies at this point, but isn’t ruling out seeking additional relief, officials said.

Lawmakers and consumer advocates have long accused Google, whose corporate parent Alphabet Inc. has a market value just over $1 trillion, of abusing its dominance in online search and advertising to stifle competition and boost its profits. Critics contend that multibillion-dollar fines and mandated changes in Google’s practices imposed by European regulators in recent years weren’t severe enough and that structural changes are needed for Google to change its conduct.

Google responded immediately via tweet: “Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed. People use Google because they choose to — not because they’re forced to or because they can’t find alternatives.”

The case was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. It alleges that Google uses billions of dollars collected from advertisers to pay phone manufacturers to ensure Google is the default search engine on browsers. Eleven states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined the federal government in the lawsuit.

But several other states demurred. The attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Utah released a statement Monday saying they have not concluded their investigation into Google and would want to consolidate their case with the DOJ’s if they decided to file. “It’s a bipartisan statement,” said spokesman Fabien Levy of the New York State attorney general’s office. “There’s things that still need to be fleshed out, basically,”

President Donald Trump’s administration has long had Google in its sights. One of Trump’s top economic advisers said two years ago that the White House was considering whether Google searches should be subject to government regulation. Trump has often criticized Google, recycling unfounded claims by conservatives that the search giant is biased against conservatives and suppresses their viewpoints, interferes with U.S. elections and prefers working with the Chinese military over the Pentagon.

Rosen told reporters that allegations of anti-conservative bias are “a totally separate set of concerns” from the issue of competition.

Google controls about 90% of global web searches. The company has been bracing for the government’s action and is expected to fiercely oppose any attempt to force it to spin off its services into separate businesses.

Read full story here…




US Scientists Fret Over Increasing Numbers Who Say They Will Refuse COVID-19 Vaccine

Technocrat scientists believe that they are in charge of vaccinating humanity for the good everyone and its their responsibility to carry out the mission. As people push back and say “NO!”, these same scientists are incredulous that anyone would not agree with their “science”. ⁃ TN Editor

Tara Granger, 36, has worked as a nurse for two decades in Suffolk County, NY, and she and her two children have been vaccinated every year.

“Drugs are my life,” she says. “It’s what I learned in school.”

But she’s been questioning the promised upcoming vaccine for COVID-19, in large part because of what she’s witnessed firsthand about the financial incentives for vaccines.

“It scares me that I got so many free lunches and free dinners because I pushed the flu vaccine,” Granger says. “What am I going to get when I push a COVID vaccine?”

Granger got sick from the coronavirus earlier this summer and said she did “the opposite of what people said to do. I took my supplements and vitamins, and didn’t go to the hospital to be put on a ventilator and die. I was smart enough to say, ‘My immune system can fight this, I just have to find the right way to do it.’ ”

Her job will require her to recommend the COVID vaccine when it’s available, but Granger said she won’t personally be getting it.

“The vaccine isn’t something we need, even if it is safe,” she says. “People want an easy solution and they think this is it. But it isn’t.”

She’s not the only one with misgivings. A Pew Research poll from late September showed that about half of US adults (51 percent) wouldn’t get a COVID-19 vaccine if it was available today — a big drop from the 72 percent who said they’d get one back in May.

Complicating things even more: This past week, two major drug manufacturers halted their vaccine trials because of safety concerns.

It’s made matters all the more confusing for Rob Holmes, 50, of Marina del Rey, Calif., who said he gets an annual flu shot despite his wife’s reluctance. “I’m starting to think I’m the crazy one,” he tells The Post.

For the first time, he hasn’t gotten a flu shot, and he said he’s “still on the fence” about whether he’ll get a COVID vaccine when it becomes available.

Claudia Torres, a 28-year-old stay-at-home mom and blogger from Miami, feels the same. She said all of her kids are up-to-date on recommended vaccines. “I’m not an anti-vaxxer or think COVID-19 is a hoax,” she says. “But I just don’t want the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Even the rich and powerful are expressing doubt. Elon Musk said in a podcast interview in late September that he won’t be getting a vaccine because he’s “not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids.”

The anti-vax movement is nothing new — in 2019, the World Health Organization listed “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top-ten threats to global health — but the growing distrust of a vaccine that, at this point, is only hypothetical is a rare cultural phenomenon.

Scott Ratzan, a physician and medical misinformation expert at the City University of New York and Columbia University, says anti-COVID vaccine sentiment is the result of “a massive assault on trust in government, in science and in public-health authorities.”

The misinformation has mostly been spread online, thanks to social media and the controversial documentary “Plandemic,” in which discredited virologist Judy Mikovits claims a hypothetical COVID vaccine would “kill millions.”

“Throw in QAnon and people’s increasing impatience with the effect of the disease on their lives and livelihoods, and you have fertile ground to sow anti-science propaganda,” says Ratzan. “It’s been like manna from heaven for hardcore anti-vaxxers.”

The usual anti-vax tropes — religious objections, concerns that vaccines cause autism — aren’t behind most COVID-19 vaccine concerns. According to an August survey from STAT and the Harris Poll, 78 percent of Americans are worried that a COVID-19 vaccine is being influenced more by politics than science.

It’s a largely bipartisan opinion: 72 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of Democrats don’t trust a vaccine pushed by politicians, regardless of their party affiliation.

Read full story here…




The World Responds: Great Barrington Declaration Gets 135,000 Signatures In 4 Days

In the course of just 4 days since release, 4,700 medical and public health scientists, 8,838 medical Practitioners and 123,298 members of the general public have signed The Great Barrington Declaration. ⁃ TN Editor

The Great Barrington Declaration

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States.




Poll: Britains Would “Go To Prison Before Being Injected”

The corona-driven Technocrat coup d’etat is at risk of collapse as masses of people around the world are rejecting the notion of mandated vaccines. In England, 65% will reject the upcoming vaccine but surprisingly, younger citizens were twice as likely to reject. ⁃ TN Editor

A recent survey by King’s College London and Ipsos MORI showed only 53 percent of the UK population are “very likely” to get the COVID-19 vaccine, once it’s on the market. Younger voters were twice as likely to oppose the vaccine in the poll of 2,237 people aged between 16 and 75. To gauge readers’ views on the topical issue, Express.co.uk conducted an exclusive poll asking: “Should Britons be forced to have the coronavirus jab once it is developed?

Sixty-five percent (2,906) of respondents said no, with many saying they would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to have the vaccine administered.

Thirty-four percent (1,617) said a compulsory vaccine programme should be rolled out across the UK, one of Europe’s hardest-hit countries since the beginning of the pandemic.

One percent (60) said they didn’t know.

One reader said they would not feel safe having a coronavirus vaccine injected into their body because they simply cannot trust pharma giants.

They said: No vaccine, whose manufacturer demands an indemnification, can be trusted.”

A second person said any attempts to force a vaccine on Britons as the country returns to the new normal would cross a dangerous line in the sand.

They said: “Forced vaccinations will mark the transition of Britain from a representative democracy into a totalitarian technocracy.”

And yet a third said if a person did not wish to avail of the virus vaccine but was pressured to do so it would amount to assault.

The reader wrote: “Forced vaccination would amount to physical assault upon the person.

“And those attacked in such way would be fully justified in using whatever means to defend themselves from such assault, as I will do.”

Read full story here…




Flowers For Dystopia: Music Begins To Reflect Culture

Historically, music and art have always reflected the culture within which they were created, and “The Great Dystopian Panic of 2020” is no exception. Les Techno has released a new album, Flowers for Dystopia, that paints a bleak picture of the present rather than the future. ⁃ TN Editor

We’re beginning to see the first wave of albums conceived and recorded during the pandemic and consequently, the first set of albums with the pandemic as a theme. This shutdown was bound to provoke topical art just as the first half of the Forties produced its fair share of war tunes. The latest offering from New York City-based post-punk electronic rocker Les Techno comes right out and says it with the artist adorning his cover with a facemask, offering a sarcastically paltry bouquet. However, the story that is told traces a much bigger through-line, framing the COVID crisis as the next step in a chain of causality. Sure, it was a once in a century pandemic event but the terrible mismanagement of it further exposes a dismantling of social institutions that maintain societal stability that has been happening for decades. This combined with our rapidly developing technocracy and maniacal partisanship shows the country barreling inexorably into a very bleak future. Techno’s stark portrait of American life is not dystopian future, it’s dystopian present.

Contrary to the dour subject matter, Flowers For Dystopia in refreshingly lively. Much in the same way that artists repurposed 50s do-wop musical tropes at the beginning of the 80s, Les Techno is reviving the pumping sound of mid to late 80s rock with a loving reverence. Snappy drums and clapping hands echoing with crisp, airy reverb. That punchy “chicka-chicka” of a shiny Stratocaster rapidly flickering while the bass slyly makes moves below. A voice that strides the line between crooning baritone and bedroom whisper. Though Techno pulls from many influences, the DNA from Aussie outfit INXS seems the most closely linked.

The opener and title track successfully brings this formula from Hutchence & Co. back to life. The narrator takes a good look around at his life to find possessions taking the place of connections. He clamours to reach out and touch people but this disconnection with humanity keeps driving the divides between us. Techno’s voice and chopped guitar echo into the spaces in between. ‘Eye On You’ follows with a broodingly swinging blues that brings to mind Depeche Mode’s early 90s rock-leaning output. The song tracks an artificial intelligence falling for a real human, incorporating an ability for lust into its programming. The stalking element and the watcher being watched finds parallels with The Stooges ‘TV Eye’ lyrically. A new take for a new century.

‘Is It Real’ is another prime example of late cold war, West Berlin kitsch. The delayed guitar stabs and bubbling mono synth flanked by vintage drum machine whirs craft a very specific vibe that has not been so successfully used since The Wall still stood. The narrator questioning the existence of an objective reality and by consequence, his sanity is an Orwellian theme that many of us are feeling today, long after that foul year of our Lord, 1984. For the B side of the album, ‘Come Along’ and ‘Guilty Pleasure’ take a more playful approach. The former locks in on a “Fine Young Cannibal snare” and freeze frame echo guitars along with a landline-toned lead. The latter lays its foundation on a steady-rolling kick and rising bass while Techno muses on fantasies.

Flowers For Dystopia has strong parallels with the 80s, not only in sound but in themes as well. The looming danger of the doom courted by right-wing politicians while ruling the western world is palpable once again. Blatant disregard for decent humanity being trumped by corporate greed and nationalist militarism is once again the current of the moment. It’s no wonder that someone who’s life skyrocketed during the avarice 80s is now bringing those devastating societal principles to run the States. Les Techno’s record dances in the face of dark times.

Read full story here…




Australia Seeks To Criminalize Anti-Lockdown, Anti-Mask Protestors

Australia is pushing tyranny to a new level as protesting over COVID lockdowns and wearing masks may soon be declared criminal activity, allowing the government to snatch and detail protestors who refuse to comply. This is based on fraudulent science that itself has mostly been “unmasked” around the world. ⁃ TN Editor

Weekend demonstrations have flared up in Australia over the last month, as Aussies have vented their frustrations and attempted to take back control of their communities after a surge in virus cases prompted the government to re-implement some of the world’s most draconian social-distancing measures.

And if there is one thing that terrifies increasingly tyrannical governments, it’s a loss of control of the narrative, which is why the Australian government is getting a jump start on curbing any so-called “conspiracy theorists” daring to spread information that questions the fear-mongering being used to keep Aussie citizens under lock and key.

A new bill is expected to be debated by the Victorian government in the State Parliament this week. It gives local authorities the power to detain “conspiracy theorists” and people who refuse to self-isolate, reported Caldron Pool.

If passed, the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) allows the government to detain anyone labeled as a “high risk” or likely to spread COVID-19 negligently.

A state government spokesman told The Age that the rule could be applied to “conspiracy theorists who refuse to self-isolate or severely drug-affected or mentally impaired people who do not have the capacity to quarantine.” Those arrested under the new rule will be housed in quarantine facilities. 

Attorney-General Jill Hennessy said the new bill would “allow us to continue responding to the challenges the pandemic presents, so we can keep protecting Victorians and delivering the services they rely on.”

So far, many of the anti-lockdown demonstrations have been held on the weekends. At least 200 people were fined and 74 arrested at a protest in Melbourne on Sunday. If the bill is passed, some protesters would be rounded up and arrested, and could spend time in a quarantine facility.

Clearly, the government’s intent to extend powers and detain conspiracy theorists and those who pose a risk of spreading the virus should be alarming to readers.

In a glimpse of what is ahead, authorities have already arrested a Melbourne woman for allegedly writing pro-anti lockdown posts on social media. 

Read full story here…