offguardian--2020-11-06--Face Masks: A Danger to Our Planet, Our Children & Ourselves

It seems like only yesterday that a massive campaign against single-use plastic straws was trending .
The much forgotten anti-straw trend was based on astronomical numbers ; a suggested 500 million straws used each day in the US alone , with more than half a billion plastic straws being consumed and discarded , every day around the entire globe .
An estimated 8.3 billion plastic straws had come to pollute the planet ’ s beautiful beaches .
The backlash against the straws appeared to be drive by the horrific impacts on the marine environment in particular .
Personal protective equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular face masks , have become a new genre of pollution .
The majority of face masks being purchase and disposed of are single-use surgical masks made of melt-blown fabric manufactured from polypropylene , a type of thermoplastic .
The vast majority of all disposable face masks being consumed have two outer layers with a filter between them ( polypropylene ) , made from nonwoven plastic fibres .
The paper COVID-19 Pandemic Repercussions on the Use and Management of Plastics published June 20 , 2020 warns that a “ monthly estimated use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gloves globally , is resulting in widespread environmental contamination.
” 194 billion face masks and gloves equates to well over 6 billion face masks being consumed and discarded each and every day .
Based on the aforementioned paper , six months of face masks alone – equates to seven hundred seventy-four billion , while 12 months of consumption , equates to a stunning one trillion five hundred forty-eight billion face masks .
Meanwhile , “ Canada alone has ordered more than 153 million N95 respirators , almost 400 million surgical masks and 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t include demand from the private sector.
” As a new emerging market , trees ( biological communities invisible to the humancentric eye ) can not only be sacrificed on the altar of “ green energy ” , we can also pulverize them into face “ ecofriendly ” masks .
What happened to all those who cared about our environmental crises ?
That of climate change , biodiversity and ocean pollution ?
Microplastics are tiny plastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in diameter , or about 0.2 inches .
They are barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 study showed that human microplastic consumption ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 particles per day .
These estimates increase to 74,000 and 121,000 when inhalation is considered .
This amounts to humans ingesting approx .
5 grams of plastic each and every week , 5 grams being the equivalent of a credit card or a US nickel .
Earlier in 2019 , the European commission ’ s chief scientific advisers stated : More recently , on August 17 , 2020 , researchers analyzed 47 human tissue samples .
Traces of microplastics were found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question , what will be the result from applying microplastic materials , that is face masks , directly and securely over our air passages ?
“ Flock ” is defined as inhaled microfibers of the plastic .
“ Flock worker ’ s lung ” is an occupational lung disease caused by exposure to flock in manufacturing processes .
People who work in flocking manufacturing processes inhale small pieces of the flock fibers , placing them at risk of interstitial lung disease .
Workers exposed to polypropylene flocking particles have developed flock worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ microplastics in human lung tissue was outlined by in a 1998 science paper , following the research of lung tissue belonging to cancer patients who had prolonged exposure to plastic fibers .
In addition to particle pollution causing damage to lung tissue and reducing lung capacity , it worsens other respiratory health issues such as asthma .
In 2013 , the International Agency for Research on Cancer , an institution belonging to the World Health Organization , concluded that particle pollution causes lung cancer .
In occupational flock , “ the cutting process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fibers in the respirable range.
” .
As facemasks undergo a continuous friction with breathing , talking , and facial movements , it seems likely , if not probable , that microscopic polypropylene microfibers , in some amount , are effectively being ingested into both the body and lungs .
Particles that are not inhaled into the lungs ( the vast majority ) make their way into our waterways .
To be more succinct , every single particle produced , that does not make its way into our bodies , will instead go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are then ingested into the body by humans and non-human life ( marine animals and fish ) , some of which is too , ingested by humans .
Of course , in addition , we drink the water , as does non-human life .
…Is this how we protect biodiversity ?
Is this what we mean by protecting health ?
To mitigate against this latest environmental and health nightmare , people have been encouraged to wear reusable fabric face coverings comprised of three layers of fabric .
On September 25 , 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fabric of home-made cloth face coverings release a large amount of fibers into the air .
The study underscored the importance of washing them .
What is not discussed are the same fibres being inhaled and ingested .
Those in the West , and those who own or have access to a clothes dryer , will know what dryer lint is .
Friction causes the fabric fibres to become loose and dislodge during the washing and drying process – resulting in sometimes little , and more often lots – of lint that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consider this excerpt from the article , How damaging is breathing in microplastics ?
[ emphasis added ] : If microfibers are shedding off clothing , they are shedding off masks .
Even cotton ones .
In fact , cotton textiles ( clothing , towels , etc . )
often produce far more lint than other fabrics .
Add to this , the inhalation of chemical laundry detergent and chemical fabric “ softener ” ( liquid and sheet form ) that many people continue to use in the process of washing and drying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume that those wearing masks for long periods of time are most at risk .
The vast majority of this group would be minimum wage workers , who have no choice but to comply , people of colour , who are told they are more susceptible to the virus than white populations , and children in schools , where masks have been made mandatory .
In June 2020 , the Children ’ s Sick Kids Hospital , perhaps the most prestigious hospital in Canada , advised that children , by and large almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wear masks and added that physical interaction and play was essential for their well-being .
These recommendations were largely ignored by the media and , despite the warnings , the government and school boards made masks and social distancing mandatory for children .
The hospital further reported that 1500 asymptomatic children were tested , none tested positive [ see this Twitter thread . ]
In the following presentation , Professor Franz Ruppert explains the impact of the pandemic from a psychological point of view .
Ruppert explains how and why people currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; why children in particular are extremely affected ; how current “ protective ” measures achieve this effect ; and whether these measures are justified .
In relation to how masks affect children , and toddlers in particular , Rupert draws out attention to the “ still face experiment ” : Put your mask away .
Come back to the light .
We need you .
This is an abridged extract of a longer article .
You can read the full piece on The Art of Annihilation

Cory Morningstar
It seems like only yesterday that a massive campaign against single-use plastic straws was trending. The much forgotten anti-straw trend was based on astronomical numbers; a suggested 500 million straws used each day in the US alone, with more than half a billion plastic straws being consumed and discarded, every day around the entire globe.
An estimated 8.3 billion plastic straws had come to pollute the planet’s beautiful beaches. The backlash against the straws appeared to be drive by the horrific impacts on the marine environment in particular.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) in 2020, in particular face masks, have become a new genre of pollution. The majority of face masks being purchase and disposed of are single-use surgical masks made of melt-blown fabric manufactured from polypropylene, a type of thermoplastic. The vast majority of all disposable face masks being consumed have two outer layers with a filter between them (polypropylene), made from nonwoven plastic fibres.
The paper COVID-19 Pandemic Repercussions on the Use and Management of Plastics published June 20, 2020 warns that a “monthly estimated use of 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves globally, is resulting in widespread environmental contamination.”
194 billion face masks and gloves equates to well over 6 billion face masks being consumed and discarded each and every day.
Based on the aforementioned paper, six months of face masks alone – equates to seven hundred seventy-four billion, while 12 months of consumption, equates to a stunning one trillion five hundred forty-eight billion face masks.
Meanwhile, “Canada alone has ordered more than 153 million N95 respirators, almost 400 million surgical masks and 18 million non-medical face masks. That doesn’t include demand from the private sector.” As a new emerging market, trees (biological communities invisible to the humancentric eye) cannot only be sacrificed on the altar of “green energy”, we can also pulverize them into face “ecofriendly” masks.
What happened to all those who cared about our environmental crises? That of climate change, biodiversity and ocean pollution?
Microplastics & Human Health
Microplastics are tiny plastic fragments less than 5 millimeters in diameter, or about 0.2 inches. They are barely visible to the human eye.
A 2019 study showed that human microplastic consumption ranges from 39,000 to 52,000 particles per day. These estimates increase to 74,000 and 121,000 when inhalation is considered. This amounts to humans ingesting approx. 5 grams of plastic each and every week, 5 grams being the equivalent of a credit card or a US nickel. Earlier in 2019, the European commission’s chief scientific advisers stated:
The evidence [on both environmental and health risks due to microplastics] provides grounds for genuine concern and for precaution to be exercised.”
More recently, on August 17, 2020, researchers analyzed 47 human tissue samples. Traces of microplastics were found in all 47 samples.
We have detected these chemicals of plastics in every single organ that we have investigated.”
senior researcher Rolf Halden, director of the Arizona State University (ASU) Biodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering
This begs the question, what will be the result from applying microplastic materials, that is face masks, directly and securely over our air passages?
“Flock” is defined as inhaled microfibers of the plastic. “Flock worker’s lung” is an occupational lung disease caused by exposure to flock in manufacturing processes. People who work in flocking manufacturing processes inhale small pieces of the flock fibers, placing them at risk of interstitial lung disease.
Workers exposed to polypropylene flocking particles have developed flock worker’s lung. The presence of microplastics in human lung tissue was outlined by in a 1998 science paper, following the research of lung tissue belonging to cancer patients who had prolonged exposure to plastic fibers.
In addition to particle pollution causing damage to lung tissue and reducing lung capacity, it worsens other respiratory health issues such as asthma. In 2013, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an institution belonging to the World Health Organization, concluded that particle pollution causes lung cancer.
An informal survey of a small group of health care workers by myself found that about 50% of workers noted that their masks began to fray at the end of their shift, noting fibers that itched their face and nose.”
[source]
In occupational flock, “the cutting process results in formation of airborne particles or fibers in the respirable range.” . As facemasks undergo a continuous friction with breathing, talking, and facial movements, it seems likely, if not probable, that microscopic polypropylene microfibers, in some amount, are effectively being ingested into both the body and lungs.
Particles that are not inhaled into the lungs (the vast majority) make their way into our waterways. To be more succinct, every single particle produced, that does not make its way into our bodies, will instead go in to our waterways. The particles are then ingested into the body by humans and non-human life (marine animals and fish), some of which is too, ingested by humans. Of course, in addition, we drink the water, as does non-human life.
…Is this how we protect biodiversity? Is this what we mean by protecting health?
Cloth Masks
To mitigate against this latest environmental and health nightmare, people have been encouraged to wear reusable fabric face coverings comprised of three layers of fabric.
On September 25, 2020, a University of California–Davis study found that the fabric of home-made cloth face coverings release a large amount of fibers into the air. The study underscored the importance of washing them. What is not discussed are the same fibres being inhaled and ingested.
Those in the West, and those who own or have access to a clothes dryer, will know what dryer lint is. Friction causes the fabric fibres to become loose and dislodge during the washing and drying process – resulting in sometimes little, and more often lots – of lint that must be removed after each cycle.
Consider this excerpt from the article, How damaging is breathing in microplastics? [emphasis added]:
Microplastics washed off from synthetic clothes contribute up to 35% of the plastic particles polluting our oceans. Every time we do our laundry, an average of 9 million microfibers end up in the wastewater treatment plants that cannot filter them, and because of that, these fibers end up in the ocean. Also, just by wearing synthetic clothes, plastic fibers are constantly being released in the air. Up until now, all research was focused on microfiber pollution through laundry washing. However, a recent study shows how wearing polyester clothes pollutes the environment to a similar extent—wearing polyester clothes releases as many microplastic fibers in the air as through washing.
If microfibers are shedding off clothing, they are shedding off masks. Even cotton ones. In fact, cotton textiles (clothing, towels, etc.) often produce far more lint than other fabrics. Add to this, the inhalation of chemical laundry detergent and chemical fabric “softener” (liquid and sheet form) that many people continue to use in the process of washing and drying the masks.
It is safe to assume that those wearing masks for long periods of time are most at risk. The vast majority of this group would be minimum wage workers, who have no choice but to comply, people of colour, who are told they are more susceptible to the virus than white populations, and children in schools, where masks have been made mandatory.
Our Children
In June 2020, the Children’s Sick Kids Hospital, perhaps the most prestigious hospital in Canada, advised that children, by and large almost completely unaffected by the virus, should not wear masks and added that physical interaction and play was essential for their well-being.
We have suggested that masks not be required when children return to school.”
Michelle Science MD, MSc, FRCPC, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Hospital for Sick Children, Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto
Close interaction such as playing and socializing is really central to child development and should not be discouraged…Overall we think it’s not realistic or in children’s best interests to completely avoid all close interaction and play.”
Dr Daphne Korczak, Pediatrics, Psychiatry
For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain, is thirsting for oxygen. The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active.”
Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson MD, PhD , Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist [full transcript]
These recommendations were largely ignored by the media and, despite the warnings, the government and school boards made masks and social distancing mandatory for children.
The hospital further reported that 1500 asymptomatic children were tested, none tested positive [see this Twitter thread.]
In the following presentation, Professor Franz Ruppert explains the impact of the pandemic from a psychological point of view. Ruppert explains how and why people currently suffer when their essential needs are taken; why children in particular are extremely affected; how current “protective” measures achieve this effect; and whether these measures are justified. In relation to how masks affect children, and toddlers in particular, Rupert draws out attention to the “still face experiment”:
Put your mask away. Come back to the light. We need you.
This is an abridged extract of a longer article. You can read the full piece on The Art of Annihilation


Keir? Hardly.

I don ’ t propose here and now to address the merits or otherwise of the Equality and Human Rights Commission ’ s Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party .
I am a member of the party and to do so in any objective or critical way would court immediate suspension from the party .
I prefer to cease my membership at a time of my own choosing .
It is impossible to write or say anything as a party member on the subject of antisemitism , unless it is a blanket condemnation of the party under Jeremy Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the EHRC findings .
In fact the EHRC report invokes Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights and affirms that “ Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who … express their opinions on internal Party matters , such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party , based on their own experience and within the law ” .
Sir Keir Starmer evinces no sympathy with this proviso .
In his fury to stamp the legend of “ new leadership ” on the party , he allows no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by members of a report by an outside agency is verboten is a separate issue and , so far as I can judge , comment on this is not deemed to be a capital offence , at least at the time of writing .
In any case , Starmer ’ s conduct of his office can hardly be beyond question for party members .
After all , from the moment of his election as leader , Jeremy Corbyn was confronted by a wall of dissent , dispute and disdain , especially within the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts to unseat him .
A brilliant surprise victory at the 2017 election was snatched away from the party by a disorganised campaign of undermining , as was vividly illustrated in David Modell ’ s documentary Labour – The Summer That Changed Everything [ BBC 2017 ] .
The defining characteristic of Corbyn ’ s leadership was that it was virulently opposed within the PLP for its duration .
Corbyn lacked the temperament and the instincts decisively to quell this dissent for a very simple reason .
He is a convinced democrat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over socialism in his political makeup .
His attitude to democracy was summed up by his mentor , Tony Benn , in 1981 : Compare and contrast Boris Johnson ’ s ruthless ridding of the pro-EU MPs from the Tory party as soon as he had an election to win .
Had the social democrats in the PLP been willing to serve in the shadow cabinet alongside the socialists , Corbyn would have led a broad-church opposition into the elections of both 2017 and 2019 .
Instead , a number of them declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s election and the remainder quit the shadow cabinet in the “ chicken coup ” of June 2016 that led to the ( for them ) calamitous challenge for the leadership by the patently inadequate Owen Smith .
Through all of this , it was open season for backbenchers to attack Corbyn in any way they chose , and the attacks increased as the centrists and right-wingers were concentrated on the backbenches , and issues like the allegations of antisemitism gave these malcontents a focus around which to coalesce .
Starmer saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the shadow cabinet in order to keep pro-EU politics in the game and to keep his ambition to lead the party fed by his being in the spotlight .
The price of Corbyn ’ s democratic generosity to Starmer was the loss of all those hitherto Labour seats in the English north and midlands that had voted to leave the EU .
But Starmer is no democrat , at least if his conduct of the reception of the EHRC report be any guide .
On the claim of his party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tony Benn had something pertinent to say on that subject too : No doubt Starmer would argue that he is indeed correcting errors and removing those who made them , but Benn ’ s point is about inequality of political power , and Corbyn as a former leader has no power comparable to that of Starmer .
But of course there is an embarrassment in Starmer ’ s position that he will seek to avoid having addressed in interview .
Corbyn brought him onto the front bench as shadow minister of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as leader .
A year later , following his re-election , Corbyn elevated Starmer to the shadow cabinet in charge of the party ’ s Brexit policy .
This was in spite of Starmer having quit in the chicken coup just three months earlier .
Thereafter , then , he was subject to the convention of collective ministerial responsibility .
Whatever errors – or even crimes – are now laid at the door of Jeremy Corbyn as leader , Starmer as shadow Brexit secretary was complicit in them .
Repudiating what was done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other member of the shadow cabinet .
Put up on The World at One to tough it out as Starmer ’ s deputy , Angela Rayner came under continuous pressure from Sarah Montague and was driven to declare that antisemitism had… This is perfidy of a desperate order .
If , as they now propose , antisemitism was rife in the party , was it a blind spot for Rayner and Starmer too or did they merely turn a blind eye to it ?
For neither of them , it seems , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that they could proclaim Corbyn ’ s blind eye from the freedom of the backbenches .
Now , under their leadership , the backbenches are not bastions of freedom of speech and nor is the party at large .
This sets a dangerous precedent for other contentious issues that will arise once COVID-19 is no longer the all-pervading issue in public life .
Watch these social democrats and see how soon they abjure democracy as a hangover from the Corbynite past .

W Stephen Gilbert
I don’t propose here and now to address the merits or otherwise of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party. I am a member of the party and to do so in any objective or critical way would court immediate suspension from the party.
I prefer to cease my membership at a time of my own choosing.
It is impossible to write or say anything as a party member on the subject of antisemitism, unless it is a blanket condemnation of the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership and/or a wholesale acceptance of the EHRC findings.
In fact the EHRC report invokes Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights and affirms that “Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who … express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law”.
Sir Keir Starmer evinces no sympathy with this proviso. In his fury to stamp the legend of “new leadership” on the party, he allows no nuance.
But the fact that discussion by members of a report by an outside agency is verboten is a separate issue and, so far as I can judge, comment on this is not deemed to be a capital offence, at least at the time of writing. In any case, Starmer’s conduct of his office can hardly be beyond question for party members.
After all, from the moment of his election as leader, Jeremy Corbyn was confronted by a wall of dissent, dispute and disdain, especially within the parliamentary party. There were several cack-handed attempts to unseat him. A brilliant surprise victory at the 2017 election was snatched away from the party by a disorganised campaign of undermining, as was vividly illustrated in David Modell’s documentary Labour – The Summer That Changed Everything [BBC 2017]. The defining characteristic of Corbyn’s leadership was that it was virulently opposed within the PLP for its duration.
Corbyn lacked the temperament and the instincts decisively to quell this dissent for a very simple reason. He is a convinced democrat. One might argue that democracy takes priority over socialism in his political makeup. His attitude to democracy was summed up by his mentor, Tony Benn, in 1981:
It is not possible to conceive of a socialist society with any future that denies political democracy, nor is it conceivable that real political democracy could fail to lead to greater social equality and socialism Arguments for Democracy, Jonathan Cape
Compare and contrast Boris Johnson’s ruthless ridding of the pro-EU MPs from the Tory party as soon as he had an election to win.
Had the social democrats in the PLP been willing to serve in the shadow cabinet alongside the socialists, Corbyn would have led a broad-church opposition into the elections of both 2017 and 2019. Instead, a number of them declined to serve from the moment of Corbyn’s election and the remainder quit the shadow cabinet in the “chicken coup” of June 2016 that led to the (for them) calamitous challenge for the leadership by the patently inadequate Owen Smith.
Through all of this, it was open season for backbenchers to attack Corbyn in any way they chose, and the attacks increased as the centrists and right-wingers were concentrated on the backbenches, and issues like the allegations of antisemitism gave these malcontents a focus around which to coalesce.
Starmer saw all this at close quarters, remaining in the shadow cabinet in order to keep pro-EU politics in the game and to keep his ambition to lead the party fed by his being in the spotlight. The price of Corbyn’s democratic generosity to Starmer was the loss of all those hitherto Labour seats in the English north and midlands that had voted to leave the EU. But Starmer is no democrat, at least if his conduct of the reception of the EHRC report be any guide. On the claim of his party’s past antisemitism, he leads by fiat.
Tony Benn had something pertinent to say on that subject too:
Those who seek to justify authoritarianism of all kinds are forced to base their argument upon a false justification for an inherent inequality of political power. They deny the right of people to correct political errors at the top or remove those who make them. All totalitarian societies fear the emergence of democratic challenges and so do many societies in the West” [ibid]
No doubt Starmer would argue that he is indeed correcting errors and removing those who made them, but Benn’s point is about inequality of political power, and Corbyn as a former leader has no power comparable to that of Starmer.
But of course there is an embarrassment in Starmer’s position that he will seek to avoid having addressed in interview. Corbyn brought him onto the front bench as shadow minister of state for immigration immediately upon his own election as leader. A year later, following his re-election, Corbyn elevated Starmer to the shadow cabinet in charge of the party’s Brexit policy. This was in spite of Starmer having quit in the chicken coup just three months earlier.
Thereafter, then, he was subject to the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. Whatever errors – or even crimes – are now laid at the door of Jeremy Corbyn as leader, Starmer as shadow Brexit secretary was complicit in them. Repudiating what was done with hindsight does not exonerate him or any other member of the shadow cabinet.
Put up on The World at One to tough it out as Starmer’s deputy, Angela Rayner came under continuous pressure from Sarah Montague and was driven to declare that antisemitism had…
always been a blind spot for Jeremy.
This is perfidy of a desperate order. If, as they now propose, antisemitism was rife in the party, was it a blind spot for Rayner and Starmer too or did they merely turn a blind eye to it? For neither of them, it seems, was resignation the appropriate course to take so that they could proclaim Corbyn’s blind eye from the freedom of the backbenches.
Now, under their leadership, the backbenches are not bastions of freedom of speech and nor is the party at large. This sets a dangerous precedent for other contentious issues that will arise once COVID-19 is no longer the all-pervading issue in public life.
Watch these social democrats and see how soon they abjure democracy as a hangover from the Corbynite past.


offguardian--2020-11-07--Covid19: British Army to Begin Testing Children Without Parental Consent

Liverpool school will also be “ barcoding ” individuals , and “ securing ” them should they test positive The @ @ @ @ @ in the “ privileged position ” of running a pilot scheme with Public Health England @ @ @ @ @ in the military to run Covid19 tests .
• Test children without getting parental consent @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ secure ” anyone who tests positive .
It ’ s all pretty @ @ @ @ @ read the letter here : And we suggest you download a copy , just in @ @ @ @ @ it .
This is one scheme at one school for now , but there ’ @ @ @ @ @ it will stay that way .
The only way to guarantee it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ , loudly .

Liverpool school will also be “barcoding” individuals, and “securing” them should they test positive
Kit Knightly
The Liverpool-based Broadgreen International School is in the “privileged position” of running a pilot scheme with Public Health England that will:
Bring in the military to run Covid19 tests.
Test children without getting parental consent first.
Identify each individual with a “unique barcode”.
“Isolate” and “secure” anyone who tests positive.
It’s all pretty bleak reading. Here is a link to it on the school website. You can also read the letter here:
And we suggest you download a copy, just in case they try and retract it.
This is one scheme at one school for now, but there’s no reason to assume it will stay that way. The only way to guarantee it doesn’t spread is to denounce it, loudly.


offguardian--2020-11-07--Coronavirus Fact-Check #8: “New daily cases” and the second wave

The media are renewing panic thanks to a “ second wave ” , but are we really seeing one ?
And what does “ daily cases ” actually mean ?
All the media have banners and counters and big red numbers of the front page .
They proclaim the “ new daily cases ” .
For example , today , it was reported that Spain has 22,000 new cases , Italy has 37,000 , the UK 24,000 and the US 116,000 .
They are ubiquitously called “ new daily cases ” .
It wasn ’ t until I was working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I realised so many people take this statement literally .
They shouldn ’ t , it is incorrect in almost every respect .
To be clear here – “ new daily cases ” are probably not new , they certainly didn ’ t all happen in one day and they definitely aren ’ t “ cases ” .
Let ’ s start with the word “ new ” – They are almost certainly not “ new cases ” .
Today isn ’ t the day they got infected , today is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The may have been infected a week ago , or a month , or 6 months .
( Or , indeed , never ) .
Just because Person A got tested on Monday , and Person B on a Tuesday does not mean B is a newer case than A .
We don ’ t have any idea if more people are getting infected , we only know we are testing more .
Charting them as “ new ” means you can make the scary red line go up , but that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secondly , the vast majority of “ cases ” reported are not actually “ cases ” .
Classically speaking , a “ case ” of a disease is someone who displays symptoms .
There is a huge difference between being infected , and being a “ case ” .
That ’ s why infection fatality rate ( IFR ) and case fatality rate ( CFR ) are two different numbers .
However for COVID19 they have abandoned this distinction , referring to every single positive test as a “ case ” , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any symptoms .
The “ new daily cases ” are none of the above .
The “ second wave ” is likely the result of increased testing .
The more people you test , the more “ infections ” you will find , ( especially when your test has a known risk of false positives ) .
If you increase the number of tests you run , you will increase the number of infections you find .
That is not a disease spreading .
In the spring the UK was testing 10,000s of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , they claim to be testing half a million .
From estimated false positive rates alone , that ’ s between 4000 and 20,000 “ new cases ” per day .
If you move a piece of furniture in your living room and find a spider underneath it on Saturday , and then the next day you move twenty items of furniture , and find 10 spiders it would be absolutely crazy to say there was 900 % daily increase in spiders or that spiders are “ increasing exponentially ” .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just weren ’ t looking for them .
…and if you hadn ’ t gone out of your way to find them , would you ever have known they were even there ?

The media are renewing panic thanks to a “second wave”, but are we really seeing one? And what does “daily cases” actually mean?
All the media have banners and counters and big red numbers of the front page. They proclaim the “new daily cases”.
For example, today, it was reported that Spain has 22,000 new cases, Italy has 37,000, the UK 24,000 and the US 116,000. They are ubiquitously called “new daily cases”.
It wasn’t until I was working on my rebuttal of Moon of Alabama that I realised so many people take this statement literally. They shouldn’t, it is incorrect in almost every respect. To be clear here – “new daily cases” are probably not new, they certainly didn’t all happen in one day and they definitely aren’t “cases”.
Let’s start with the word “new” – They are almost certainly not “new cases”. Today isn’t the day they got infected, today is the day their test results came back. The may have been infected a week ago, or a month, or 6 months.(Or, indeed, never).
Just because Person A got tested on Monday, and Person B on a Tuesday does not mean B is a newer case than A.
We don’t have any idea if more people are getting infected, we only know we are testing more. Charting them as “new” means you can make the scary red line go up, but that is mathematically incorrect, and intellectually dishonest.
Secondly, the vast majority of “cases” reported are not actually “cases”.
Classically speaking, a “case” of a disease is someone who displays symptoms. There is a huge difference between being infected, and being a “case”. That’s why infection fatality rate (IFR) and case fatality rate (CFR) are two different numbers.
However for COVID19 they have abandoned this distinction, referring to every single positive test as a “case”, despite the fact the vast majority never exhibit any symptoms.
Summary
The “new daily cases” are none of the above. The “second wave” is likely the result of increased testing. The more people you test, the more “infections” you will find, (especially when your test has a known risk of false positives).
If you increase the number of tests you run, you will increase the number of infections you find. That is not a disease spreading.
In the spring the UK was testing 10,000s of people per day. As of last week, they claim to be testing half a million. From estimated false positive rates alone, that’s between 4000 and 20,000 “new cases” per day.
An analogy:
If you move a piece of furniture in your living room and find a spider underneath it on Saturday, and then the next day you move twenty items of furniture, and find 10 spiders it would be absolutely crazy to say there was 900% daily increase in spiders or that spiders are “increasing exponentially”.
Those spiders were probably there yesterday. You just weren’t looking for them.
…and if you hadn’t gone out of your way to find them, would you ever have known they were even there?


offguardian--2020-11-08--Censoring Donald Trump is more “dangerous to democracy” than anything he could ever say

Oligarchs and social media giants are now claiming a monopoly on “ the truth ” , that should worry everyone Censoring Donald Trump is more “ dangerous to democracy ” than anything he could ever say The media have called the election for Biden , but the counting goes on and there is a legal case in the offing .
But whoever emerges from this deluge of sludge , fraud and propaganda to become president of the United States , there has undoubtedly already been one big loser – freedom of speech .
Late on Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States – emerged from the White House to make a speech .
He accused the Democratic party , the political establishment , the media and tech giants/social media companies of working together to steal the election and put Biden in the Whitehouse .
You likely didn ’ t see all of it , because most of the mainstream news channels simply refused to broadcast it .
Watch this clip : Earlier that night , MSNBC had cut away from Trump ’ s first speech claiming victory , with anchor Brian Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality ” and “ dangerous ” .
Social media companies were doing the same thing .
Within hours of it being set up Facebook deleted a group protesting the election result , while twitter reduced the President ’ s timeline to this : This isn ’ t about defending Donald Trump , or even agreeing that the election was rigged ( although there is plenty of evidence to suspect as much ) .
This is about a principle .
Donald Trump is the elected head of state , and he is being denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents by the faceless servants of corporate media oligarchs .
This is a terrible , terrifyingly awful precedent to set .
The owners of Comcast or Warner Bros or Disney or Facebook or Twitter are not elected officials .
They have no legal authority , and thus no accountability .
Yet they are claiming the right to determine what elected officials can and can not say to the people who elected them .
There is a strain of thought that this kind of censorship is justified .
“ Spreading disinformation puts lives at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the media stopped people lying we wouldn ’ t be in this mess ” or “ the news should only broadcast the truth !
” .
The argument goes that “ allowing Donald Trump to “ publicly undermine our democratic institutions will erode the public trust and could lead to violence.
” But I would argue that empowering billionaires to hold a monopoly on “ the truth ” is far more dangerous to democracy than anything Trump could ever say .
To people inclined to disagree , I leave these five questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : • Who made the decision to censor the elected President of the United States ?
• Who granted them this power ?
• Whose interests do they serve ?
• To whom are they accountable ?
• In the future , who gets to decide “ the truth ” ?

Oligarchs and social media giants are now claiming a monopoly on “the truth”, that should worry everyone
Censoring Donald Trump is more “dangerous to democracy” than anything he could ever say
Kit Knightly
The media have called the election for Biden, but the counting goes on and there is a legal case in the offing. But whoever emerges from this deluge of sludge, fraud and propaganda to become president of the United States, there has undoubtedly already been one big loser – freedom of speech.
Late on Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, Donald Trump – the elected President of the United States – emerged from the White House to make a speech.
He accused the Democratic party, the political establishment, the media and tech giants/social media companies of working together to steal the election and put Biden in the Whitehouse.
You likely didn’t see all of it, because most of the mainstream news channels simply refused to broadcast it. Watch this clip:
Earlier that night, MSNBC had cut away from Trump’s first speech claiming victory, with anchor Brian Williams claiming it was “not rooted in reality” and “dangerous”.
Social media companies were doing the same thing. Within hours of it being set up Facebook deleted a group protesting the election result, while twitter reduced the President’s timeline to this:
This isn’t about defending Donald Trump, or even agreeing that the election was rigged (although there is plenty of evidence to suspect as much). This is about a principle. Donald Trump is the elected head of state, and he is being denied a platform to address the people he represents by the faceless servants of corporate media oligarchs.
This is a terrible, terrifyingly awful precedent to set.
The owners of Comcast or Warner Bros or Disney or Facebook or Twitter are not elected officials. They have no legal authority, and thus no accountability. Yet they are claiming the right to determine what elected officials can and cannot say to the people who elected them.
There is a strain of thought that this kind of censorship is justified. “Spreading disinformation puts lives at risk”, they say. “If the media stopped people lying we wouldn’t be in this mess” or “the news should only broadcast the truth!”.
The argument goes that “allowing Donald Trump to “publicly undermine our democratic institutions will erode the public trust and could lead to violence.”
But I would argue that empowering billionaires to hold a monopoly on “the truth” is far more dangerous to democracy than anything Trump could ever say.
To people inclined to disagree, I leave these five questions. Answer them, if you can:
Who made the decision to censor the elected President of the United States? Who granted them this power? Whose interests do they serve? To whom are they accountable? In the future, who gets to decide “the truth”?


offguardian--2020-11-08--This Week in the Guardian #16

This Week in the Guardian #16

Every week we like to highlight three or four stories that go full-Guardian , but don ’ t require an entire article of refutation .
We encourage reader-participation here , so if you come across something you feel should be included in the next edition either post a link below , or send us an e-mail .
“ Aftermath ” might be a misnomer , since the election looks to be anything but over , but the Graun has lept on the back of Biden ’ s ( possibly premature ) declaration of victory to start pushing the agenda they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this , in one The Guardian ’ s anonymous editorials : Sounds like we might be set for another load of “ responsibility to protect ” talk , doesn ’ t it ?
This one is a painful read on Biden ’ s raft of virtues , and contains this sentence : Which is an alarmingly jingoistic turn of phrase .
If/when Biden is actually officially President , this will only get worse .
The same people that put a tax on sugar because it ’ s bad for you are now planning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s bad for the planet .
A report from some experts says that since meat production is contributed to climate change , we should tax it more .
This is a tax , of course .
Not a ban .
So while it will limit the purchase of meat , it will only limit poor people purchasing meat .
The rich will still be able to buy organic , grass-fed steaks while we ’ re all munching down on lab-grown soy gruel .
Another story , from the next day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform ” of the food industry .
It says .
Plus : This is about your wellbeing you understand , and not foisting artificial “ food ” made by corporate giants whilst forcing the underclass into a quasi-medieval peasant lifestyle .
Not at all .
Child labour doesn ’ t have to be exploitation – it gave me life skills This is an article about how , in some circumstances , child labour isn ’ t necessarily a bad thing .
In some developing countries it ’ s really important for teaching children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be said ?
Yes actually : it ’ s part of the Guardian ’ s “ Global Development ” section , which is paid for by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation .
An rare positive here – four lines of real truth , hidden away in a puff-piece interview marking the release of actor Gabriel Byrne ’ s autobiography .
Amid his anecdotes , and the interviewer ’ s inane questions , are the only four lines of real truth The Graun has printed this month ( if not year ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Biden .
He says Reagan should have been in jail , and says nobody truly understands the blue-collar rage that supports Donald Trump .
He points out that The Pentagon has a film department , and that America uses Hollywood to push its own mythology on the world .
Later he says : It ’ s a sign of how off-script he is that at one point the interviewer throws in a gentle rebuke for “ how close he skips to conspiracy theory ” .
Good work , Mr Byrne .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ told , a busy week for The Guardian .
And we didn ’ t even mention the Guardian US Editor opportunistically begging for money .
Did we miss anything ?
Tell us about it in the comments below , and keep an eye out for articles that should go in the next issue .

Every week we like to highlight three or four stories that go full-Guardian, but don’t require an entire article of refutation.
We encourage reader-participation here, so if you come across something you feel should be included in the next edition either post a link below, or send us an e-mail.
Foreign Policy Disasters Signalled in Election Aftermath
“Aftermath” might be a misnomer, since the election looks to be anything but over, but the Graun has lept on the back of Biden’s (possibly premature) declaration of victory to start pushing the agenda they’ve been saving up.
Consider this, in one The Guardian’s anonymous editorials:
[Biden] will have to reassert America’s role as the global problem-solver. Under Mr Trump the “indispensable nation” disappeared when it was needed the most.
Sounds like we might be set for another load of “responsibility to protect” talk, doesn’t it?
This one is a painful read on Biden’s raft of virtues, and contains this sentence:
[Biden] will try to bring Russia’s Vladimir Putin to heel
Which is an alarmingly jingoistic turn of phrase. If/when Biden is actually officially President, this will only get worse.
The same people that put a tax on sugar because it’s bad for you are now planning to put a tax on meat because it’s bad for the planet. A report from some experts says that since meat production is contributed to climate change, we should tax it more.
This is a tax, of course. Not a ban. So while it will limit the purchase of meat, it will only limit poor people purchasing meat. The rich will still be able to buy organic, grass-fed steaks while we’re all munching down on lab-grown soy gruel.
Another story, from the next day, about a paper which called for “reform” of the food industry.
If emissions from food production are to be cut to safe levels, diets in rich countries are also likely to have to change.
It says. Plus:
Diets need to shift to contain less food in general”
This is about your wellbeing you understand, and not foisting artificial “food” made by corporate giants whilst forcing the underclass into a quasi-medieval peasant lifestyle. Not at all.
This is an article about how, in some circumstances, child labour isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In some developing countries it’s really important for teaching children life skills.
Does anything else need to be said?
Yes actually: it’s part of the Guardian’s “Global Development” section, which is paid for by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
An rare positive here – four lines of real truth, hidden away in a puff-piece interview marking the release of actor Gabriel Byrne’s autobiography. Amid his anecdotes, and the interviewer’s inane questions, are the only four lines of real truth The Graun has printed this month (if not year):
Since 1945, the US has embarked on 75 different military interventions toppling legitimate regimes. And yet the big thing is that Russia interfered in the American election? The Americans have interfered in every election around the world.”
He criticises Obama, and Clinton, and Biden. He says Reagan should have been in jail, and says nobody truly understands the blue-collar rage that supports Donald Trump.
He points out that The Pentagon has a film department, and that America uses Hollywood to push its own mythology on the world. Later he says:
now I question everything. I believe it’s a responsibility to do it.”
It’s a sign of how off-script he is that at one point the interviewer throws in a gentle rebuke for “how close he skips to conspiracy theory”.
Good work, Mr Byrne. Tell it how it is.
* * *
All told, a busy week for The Guardian. And we didn’t even mention the Guardian US Editor opportunistically begging for money.
Did we miss anything? Tell us about it in the comments below, and keep an eye out for articles that should go in the next issue.


offguardian--2020-11-09--I’m Really Sorry – Redux

I’m Really Sorry – Redux

A few years ago , after reading a brillig academic article about how those who believe in conspiracy theories might be inclined toward unethical actions and petty crimes , my conscience got the best of me and I made a public confession .
I had been accused of being a conspiratorial thinker , and I knew I had once committed an unethical act , one that might be called a petty crime .
The article made me feel guilty and I felt a strong need to admit my transgression , which I did .
It felt so good to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been proud of me .
In recent days , however , I have seen many mainstream corporate media articles , not just academic studies , warning about deluded people who believe in conspiracy theories and how their erroneous beliefs are messing up the upcoming election and the authorities ’ responses to Covid-19 and a lot of other important stuff like the Lockdown .
That old devil guilt has revisited me .
I don ’ t want to mess anything up for the authorities .
Let me , however , be clear at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theories .
They are different from the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush , Colin Powell , Barack Obama , Hilary Clinton , Joseph Biden , Donald Trump , the World Health Organization people , and other such luminaries , concerning events such as the attack of September 11 , 2011 , weapons of mass destruction in Iraq , the ongoing war on terror , the prosecution of Julian Assange , Russian-gate , the need for dramatically increased censorship , the Lockdown , the Great Reset , etc .
These people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ petty crime , for their handiwork is grand indeed .
They are big people , and very smart .
In any case , I don ’ t know what small stuff they might be up to when not killing so many people all around the world .
I remember how that academic article that I had read was “ backed up by science , ” which was very reassuring , and that it wasn ’ t referring to big people like the aforementioned .
The distinguished authors , who were from illustrious universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have concluded that the US national security state conspired to kill President Kennedy , to take one nutty example , and are inclined to take to the dark side and pilfer M & Ms from candy counters and stuff like that .
We are very gullible and prone to pettiness and mass delusions was the authors ’ point , because the internet has scrambled our brains .
They were saying we tend to believe weird shit like there ’ s a government spy program that involves electronic squirrels that climb trees and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That Building 7 at the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition .
Or the really wacked-out thought that all conspiracies take place behind our backs since they can ’ t take place in front of our backs since our backs are back and not front .
Or that Sirhan Sirhan did not assassinate Senator Robert Kennedy .
That Donald Trump is actually Liberace ’ s illegitimate son and Queen Elizabeth his mother .
Or that the war on terror was a preplanned government plot devised to justify the invasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries .
Crazy stuff like there ’ s a government plot to place signs near low doorways warning “ Watch Your Head , ” so people will literally try to do that and smash their clueless brains to smithereens and die as part of a population control program .
As we know , all these nutty conspiracy beliefs are of equal value and validity , and to even harbor the thought that the CIA ’ s 1967 secret Dispatch – Doc 1035-960 , showing their employees and media accomplices how to counter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be involved in all these articles I ’ ve been reading is to risk further accusations of being wacked-out and in need of examining one ’ s proclivity toward everyday crimes .
So I won ’ t go there .
I ’ m feeling guilty enough .
So bless me , folks , for I have sinned .
For the second time in the past few years I have stolen and eaten the forbidden fruit .
Let me confess .
Last week , I again found myself in my local co-op grocery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been looking for myself when I found myself there , staring into bins of dried fruit , but let ’ s just say I had been around .
When you ’ re lost and wacked-out , you never know where you are or why you believe what you believe , and so you can find yourself in strange places .
Years ago my good friend went to California to find himself , and when he returned he said he found himself in a mirror and was really his step-brother ’ s illegitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to always tell me that I tended to do everything ass backwards , even think ass-backwards , and when I said , “ Of course , I do , so do you .
What ’ s wrong with that ?
” they looked at me as if I had flipped .
When I asked them if they could do things ass forward , our friendships ended .
In the co-op market I was standing over the bulk bins , trying to decide what dried fruit to buy .
They all looked good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of like staring at forty different tubes of toothpaste on the store shelf and wondering which to buy or if the one advertised for women would work for a man since men must have different teeth .
The comparison is not exactly apt , I guess , for you can ’ t test the toothpastes , but the fruit looked so delicious .
So , when no one was looking , I first tried the mangoes , then the apricots , and finally the figs .
I thought I saw the store @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figs because I was so enjoying the fruits of my crime that I let my guard down and was facing in his direction with my mask off .
This was really stupid of me , since the same thing happened the last time and I was paranoid afterward .
I know , I know – when you keep repeating something that doesn ’ t work , they say that ’ s insane .
But I remembered when I couldn ’ t afford such expensive fruit and went to orgies just to eat the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were watching me .
When I was leaving the store , my heart was pounding .
I kept glancing over my shoulder .
I decided to replace the orange day-glow mask I had used in the store with another I carried .
Flesh colored – to blend in .
An old lady on a walker seemed to be following me , but I ditched her by circling the block two-and-a-halff times , my lucky number .
As I was close to home , I thought of my narrow escape and the brilliance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my criminal activity with the fruit .
I also couldn ’ t help thinking how the figs had reminded me of my latest conspiracy theory , but one supported by sources as confidential and reliable as those referenced by The New York Times or The Washington Post .
In addition , like those devotees of truth and confidentiality , I will never reveal my sources .
They can torture me and I won ’ t .
Here is what they told me .
It bears repeating .
Legend has it that Isaac @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting in a garden , watching apples fall perpendicularly to the ground .
However , this is not true .
I have learned from my confidential sources that his nickname was Isaac “ Fig ” Newton and that those who claim the Fig Newton cookie was named after Newton , Massachusetts are involved in a great cover-up .
My sources tell me that when Isaac was a child , he was so fond of figs that his mother had to warn him against eating too many , for as you probably know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fiber and possess a laxative quality .
Isaac was defecating so much and so often that his mother was alarmed .
But a mother ’ s panic at a child ’ s toilet habits can be a source of insight years later .
So it was that years later it was Isaac ’ s experience on the potty that gave him his great insight into gravity .
Reflecting back on his childhood , he realized that shit always went down , never up ( there were no electric fans in those days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it went up when “ shit hit the fan ” like they ’ re saying about this year ’ s election ) .
He remembered his mother ’ s loving words when as a boy he would tell his mom he had to “ take a shit , ” she would always remind him that it was always better to give than take , so he should “ give a shit.
” Alas , it was Isaac ’ s chore to take the family potty out behind the house where it was emptied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet under .
Thus , the adult Isaac came to call his discovery gravity , after the grave .
He scientifically proved what everyone already knew : that everything and everyone goes down , eventually .
Not the most uplifting news , I grant you , but I have reliable sources for that also .
So I readily admit I am guilty of this inclination toward low-level “ crime , ” as the professors so brilliantly explicated .
No doubt , it is connected to my conspiratorial and paranoid mindset .
I hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just can ’ t resist the forbidden fruit .
Although not an apple , it seems to give me insight into the knowledge of good and evil , and who is following whom .
For some reason , I suspect those brillig academics and mainstream corporate journalists will not be writing about the elite criminals who conspire to invade countries , kill millions , blame it on others , and conduct vast propaganda campaigns .
Those are crimes against humanity , and are beyond the purview of work aimed at showing how sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders are big-time criminals .
These writers are following their bosses .
Unlike Isaac , they don ’ t give a shit .
They are full of it .
I ’ m not really sorry .
I got that ass-backwards .

Edward Curtin
A few years ago, after reading a brillig academic article about how those who believe in conspiracy theories might be inclined toward unethical actions and petty crimes, my conscience got the best of me and I made a public confession. I had been accused of being a conspiratorial thinker, and I knew I had once committed an unethical act, one that might be called a petty crime.
The article made me feel guilty and I felt a strong need to admit my transgression, which I did. It felt so good to come clean in public. Oprah would have been proud of me.
In recent days, however, I have seen many mainstream corporate media articles, not just academic studies, warning about deluded people who believe in conspiracy theories and how their erroneous beliefs are messing up the upcoming election and the authorities’ responses to Covid-19 and a lot of other important stuff like the Lockdown. That old devil guilt has revisited me. I don’t want to mess anything up for the authorities.
Let me, however, be clear at the outset what I mean by my conspiracy theories.
They are different from the conspiracy theories of George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Donald Trump, the World Health Organization people, and other such luminaries, concerning events such as the attack of September 11, 2001, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the ongoing war on terror, the prosecution of Julian Assange, Russian-gate, the need for dramatically increased censorship, the Lockdown, the Great Reset, etc.
These people’s conspiracy theories have nothing to do with petty crime, for their handiwork is grand indeed. They are big people, and very smart. In any case, I don’t know what small stuff they might be up to when not killing so many people all around the world.
I remember how that academic article that I had read was “backed up by science,” which was very reassuring, and that it wasn’t referring to big people like the aforementioned. The distinguished authors, who were from illustrious universities, meant little people like me, who have concluded that the US national security state conspired to kill President Kennedy, to take one nutty example, and are inclined to take to the dark side and pilfer M&Ms from candy counters and stuff like that.
We are very gullible and prone to pettiness and mass delusions was the authors’ point, because the internet has scrambled our brains.
They were saying we tend to believe weird shit like there’s a government spy program that involves electronic squirrels that climb trees and take pictures of you inside your house. That Building 7 at the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Or the really wacked-out thought that all conspiracies take place behind our backs since they can’t take place in front of our backs since our backs are back and not front.
Or that Sirhan Sirhan did not assassinate Senator Robert Kennedy. That Donald Trump is actually Liberace’s illegitimate son and Queen Elizabeth his mother. Or that the war on terror was a preplanned government plot devised to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, among other countries.
Crazy stuff like there’s a government plot to place signs near low doorways warning “Watch Your Head,” so people will literally try to do that and smash their clueless brains to smithereens and die as part of a population control program.
As we know, all these nutty conspiracy beliefs are of equal value and validity, and to even harbor the thought that the CIA’s 1967 secret Dispatch – Doc 1035-960, showing their employees and media accomplices how to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists – might be involved in all these articles I’ve been reading is to risk further accusations of being wacked-out and in need of examining one’s proclivity toward everyday crimes.
So I won’t go there. I’m feeling guilty enough.
So bless me, folks, for I have sinned. For the second time in the past few years I have stolen and eaten the forbidden fruit. Let me confess.
Last week, I again found myself in my local co-op grocery market. You might wonder where I had been looking for myself when I found myself there, staring into bins of dried fruit, but let’s just say I had been around. When you’re lost and wacked-out, you never know where you are or why you believe what you believe, and so you can find yourself in strange places.
Years ago my good friend went to California to find himself, and when he returned he said he found himself in a mirror and was really his step-brother’s illegitimate uncle. He and my other friends used to always tell me that I tended to do everything ass backwards, even think ass-backwards, and when I said, “Of course, I do, so do you. What’s wrong with that?” they looked at me as if I had flipped. When I asked them if they could do things ass forward, our friendships ended.
I found myself alone.
In the co-op market I was standing over the bulk bins, trying to decide what dried fruit to buy. They all looked good. It was a tough choice, sort of like staring at forty different tubes of toothpaste on the store shelf and wondering which to buy or if the one advertised for women would work for a man since men must have different teeth.
The comparison is not exactly apt, I guess, for you can’t test the toothpastes, but the fruit looked so delicious. So, when no one was looking, I first tried the mangoes, then the apricots, and finally the figs. I thought I saw the store manager see me when I took the figs because I was so enjoying the fruits of my crime that I let my guard down and was facing in his direction with my mask off.
This was really stupid of me, since the same thing happened the last time and I was paranoid afterward. I know, I know – when you keep repeating something that doesn’t work, they say that’s insane. But I remembered when I couldn’t afford such expensive fruit and went to orgies just to eat the grapes. Even then I thought people were watching me.
When I was leaving the store, my heart was pounding. I kept glancing over my shoulder. I decided to replace the orange day-glow mask I had used in the store with another I carried. Flesh colored – to blend in.
An old lady on a walker seemed to be following me, but I ditched her by circling the block two-and-a-halff times, my lucky number. As I was close to home, I thought of my narrow escape and the brilliance of the study that connected my conspiratorial thinking to my criminal activity with the fruit.
I also couldn’t help thinking how the figs had reminded me of my latest conspiracy theory, but one supported by sources as confidential and reliable as those referenced by The New York Times or The Washington Post. In addition, like those devotees of truth and confidentiality, I will never reveal my sources.
They can torture me and I won’t.
Here is what they told me. It bears repeating.
Legend has it that Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity while sitting in a garden, watching apples fall perpendicularly to the ground. However, this is not true. I have learned from my confidential sources that his nickname was Isaac “Fig” Newton and that those who claim the Fig Newton cookie was named after Newton, Massachusetts are involved in a great cover-up.
That’s nothing new.
My sources tell me that when Isaac was a child, he was so fond of figs that his mother had to warn him against eating too many, for as you probably know, figs, like prunes, are filled with fiber and possess a laxative quality. Isaac was defecating so much and so often that his mother was alarmed. But a mother’s panic at a child’s toilet habits can be a source of insight years later.
So it was that years later it was Isaac’s experience on the potty that gave him his great insight into gravity. Reflecting back on his childhood, he realized that shit always went down, never up (there were no electric fans in those days, so no one would say that it went up when “shit hit the fan” like they’re saying about this year’s election). He remembered his mother’s loving words when as a boy he would tell his mom he had to “take a shit,” she would always remind him that it was always better to give than take, so he should “give a shit.”
Alas, it was Isaac’s chore to take the family potty out behind the house where it was emptied down into a deep hole about six feet under. Thus, the adult Isaac came to call his discovery gravity, after the grave. He scientifically proved what everyone already knew: that everything and everyone goes down, eventually. Not the most uplifting news, I grant you, but I have reliable sources for that also.
So I readily admit I am guilty of this inclination toward low-level “crime,” as the professors so brilliantly explicated. No doubt, it is connected to my conspiratorial and paranoid mindset. I hope that much is clear. Sometimes I just can’t resist the forbidden fruit. Although not an apple, it seems to give me insight into the knowledge of good and evil, and who is following whom.
For some reason, I suspect those brillig academics and mainstream corporate journalists will not be writing about the elite criminals who conspire to invade countries, kill millions, blame it on others, and conduct vast propaganda campaigns. Those are crimes against humanity, and are beyond the purview of work aimed at showing how sick everyday people are who suspect that their leaders are big-time criminals.
These writers are following their bosses. Unlike Isaac, they don’t give a shit.
They are full of it.
I’m not really sorry. I got that ass-backwards.


offguardian--2020-11-10--WAKE UP, LIBERALS! American Voters Are Smarter Than You Are

Ever since Election Day , the self-righteous hate parade has been marching its way across liberal media .
Too much support for Donald Trump !
Even amid general declarations of a Biden victory , liberal angst – and snobbish posturing – darken nearly every op-ed , “ news analysis , ” social media post and Twitter storm in which the Right Thinkers pontificate about the election returns .
And their message is always pretty much the same : too many Americans just don ’ t get it .
Even after months of patient lectures from Right Thinkers , assuring us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for every American evil from slavery to the latest respiratory virus , tens of millions of the dumb clucks actually voted for him !
Whatever is the world coming to ?
Well , trust the liberals to have an answer ready .
If substantial majorities in dozens of states across the nation still prefer The Donald to Jolly Joe , it can only mean one thing : Americans are no good .
“ [ T ] he outsize support Trump has continued to receive exposes America ’ s ‘ soul ’ for what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perry for the Brookings Institution the morning after the election .
Brittney Cooper , a professor at Rutgers University , intoned on the same day – before many of the ballots had even been counted !
– that “ Donald Trump is the fault of white people .
His rise is a direct result of white people ’ s collective rejection of the progress that the Obama era signaled.
” In an equally vindictive temper , the Boston Globe cited “ Black voters ” who found widespread support for Trump to be proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decisively reject racist policy , ” a phenomenon they found “ disappointing but not surprising.
” And so it went .
Now , if you yourself are one of those liberals who celebrated the Biden campaign as a “ battle for the nation ’ s soul ” ( to borrow the old plagiarist ’ s own saccharine phrase ) , and if you ’ ve stumbled onto this column on your way to the more flattering and insular world of the New York Times editorial page , please allow me just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I did not vote for Donald Trump .
But I did expect him to poll even more successfully than he actually did this time around .
And my reasons had precious little to do with liberal virtue-signaling .
Because the real secret of Trump ’ s popularity isn ’ t any of the things liberals are moaning about from their agenda-setting cenacles .
What drives the Trump phenomenon is the hypocritical refusal of those same liberals to recognize , let alone to confess , the extent of their betrayal of American working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public ’ s fury even when it ’ s shouted at them by millions of voices at a time .
Do you claim to revile Trump ’ s racism , Mr. Liberal ?
Then why did you insist on nominating , as the antidote to him , a man whose first great political project was to fight racial desegregation , who went out of his way to praise Strom Thurmond – Mr. “ Massive Resistance ” himself – for sending lots of black people to prison , and who consistently supported a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities ?
Did you find Trump “ divisive ” ?
Then why did you cheer from the sidelines as your counterparts in Great Britain smeared and demonized the most stubbornly non-discriminatory politician in recent history ( Jeremy Corbyn ) , and nod approvingly when liberal pundits applied the “ racist ” label to supporters of Bernie Sanders here in the U.S. , simply because he happens to be a white male ?
You say you hate Trump for attacking the “ free press ” ?
Well , where has the vaunted liberal establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the worst attack on press freedom in decades ?
Where was that establishment ’ s respect for honest journalism while , for three years , it screamed its support for Russiagate , probably the silliest conspiracy theory in recent Washington history , and vilified skeptics as everything from agents of the Kremlin to closet Trumpists ?
Yes , you say there are questions of “ character ” at stake .
And you claim to be horrified at the allegations of sexual harassment Trump has collected over the years .
But do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar accusations against Joe Biden ?
The liberal media had a field day excoriating her , questioning her motives , impugning her character ; and Biden walked away unscathed , even nabbing the “ proud and excited ” endorsement of the feckless National Organization for Women .
So much for “ character.
” Trump , you add , is “ authoritarian ” ?
Maybe so .
But what do you call the police state tactics unleashed by more than forty state governors – and celebrated by the Democratic Party leadership – that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ruling by “ emergency ” decrees and confining huge numbers of people in what amounts to house arrest ?
What have liberals done to oppose this massive attack on democracy ?
They ’ ve done nothing .
Yes , they did speak up when protesters objected to the theft of their rights : they called them right-wing lunatics and enemies of science .
Why wasn ’ t such contempt for political dissent an example of “ authoritarianism ” ?
Could it be because Trump didn ’ t say it ?
And wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved their attachment to democracy by sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign – once it began to look as though he might actually emerge from the primaries as the front-runner ?
Did any liberals protest when Democratic Party leaders bullied each of the contenders to drop out of the race to ensure that the notably unpopular Biden would be the only available alternative to Trump ?
Isn ’ t it an “ authoritarian ” political structure that dictates to the voters what their choices are , instead of letting the public decide for itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close a relationship to Russia to be fully trusted – is that it ?
Yet Joe Biden has boasted of his fealty to Israel – a state whose meddling in American politics makes other countries look like amateurs by comparison .
And not a single establishment liberal or mainstream media outlet that I can think of accused him of disloyalty for taking such a stand .
I know , I know .
In good liberal circles , one doesn ’ t mention such things .
Joe Biden is the Democratic Party establishment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Orange-Haired Menace .
So we mustn ’ t even notice his incorrigible lying , his rotten political history , his obvious disdain for political dissent , his equally obvious mental decline – not even his choice of an unprincipled civil rights buster and police-violence enabler as a “ progressive ” running mate .
But while liberals may manage not to see the obvious , they haven ’ t succeeded in blinding the entire American electorate .
And so , unsurprisingly , the voters are behaving more sensibly than the pundits who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the real Joe Biden , and they have had the inevitable , natural reaction .
You liberals would have done the same – if you ’ d been half as honest .
“ Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds , ” wrote Julien Benda in The Treason of the Intellectuals barely a century ago .
Just as Republicans have used the 2020 campaign to smear all opponents as dangerous subversives , the Democrats have made a Trumpless White House an end that justifies any means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a full-throttle assault on civil liberties under the pretext of protecting the nation ’ s “ health ” – while simultaneously rejecting their own voters ’ demands for Medicare for All .
And all this has been spiced with hypocrisy rank enough to have embarrassed Tartuffe himself – as the Democrats pose as the enemies of “ hate ” while execrating every voter who can ’ t swallow their bilge as either a racist , an idiot , a Nazi sympathizer or a potential mass murderer .
“ I feel like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal I know on Facebook , deploring an America in which so many people could still cast ballots for The Donald .
And I want to tell him : you are mistaken , my friend .
You and your fellow liberals aren ’ t just on the brink of leaving the country .
You turned your back on its people a long time ago .
And if you don ’ t know that , they do .
Better awaken – and soon .
Otherwise , by the time you finally start caring about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of as your equals , they may not be in any mood to listen to you .

Michael Lesher
Ever since Election Day, the self-righteous hate parade has been marching its way across liberal media.
Too much support for Donald Trump!
Even amid general declarations of a Biden victory, liberal angst – and snobbish posturing – darken nearly every op-ed, “news analysis,” social media post and Twitter storm in which the Right Thinkers pontificate about the election returns.
And their message is always pretty much the same: too many Americans just don’t get it. Even after months of patient lectures from Right Thinkers, assuring us all that Donald Trump is personally responsible for every American evil from slavery to the latest respiratory virus, tens of millions of the dumb clucks actually voted for him! Whatever is the world coming to?
Well, trust the liberals to have an answer ready. If substantial majorities in dozens of states across the nation still prefer The Donald to Jolly Joe, it can only mean one thing: Americans are no good.
“[T]he outsize support Trump has continued to receive exposes America’s ‘soul’ for what it is,” lamented Andre M. Perry for the Brookings Institution the morning after the election. Brittney Cooper, a professor at Rutgers University, intoned on the same day – before many of the ballots had even been counted! – that “Donald Trump is the fault of white people. His rise is a direct result of white people’s collective rejection of the progress that the Obama era signaled.” In an equally vindictive temper, the Boston Globe cited “Black voters” who found widespread support for Trump to be proof of “the country’s failure to decisively reject racist policy,” a phenomenon they found “disappointing but not surprising.”
And so it went.
Now, if you yourself are one of those liberals who celebrated the Biden campaign as a “battle for the nation’s soul” (to borrow the old plagiarist’s own saccharine phrase), and if you’ve stumbled onto this column on your way to the more flattering and insular world of the New York Times editorial page, please allow me just a few words before you go.
No, I did not vote for Donald Trump. But I did expect him to poll even more successfully than he actually did this time around. And my reasons had precious little to do with liberal virtue-signaling.
Because the real secret of Trump’s popularity isn’t any of the things liberals are moaning about from their agenda-setting cenacles. What drives the Trump phenomenon is the hypocritical refusal of those same liberals to recognize, let alone to confess, the extent of their betrayal of American working people – and their inability to hear the public’s fury even when it’s shouted at them by millions of voices at a time.
Shall I prove it?
Do you claim to revile Trump’s racism, Mr. Liberal? Then why did you insist on nominating, as the antidote to him, a man whose first great political project was to fight racial desegregation, who went out of his way to praise Strom Thurmond – Mr. “Massive Resistance” himself – for sending lots of black people to prison, and who consistently supported a program of mass incarceration aimed primarily at minorities?
Did you find Trump “divisive”? Then why did you cheer from the sidelines as your counterparts in Great Britain smeared and demonized the most stubbornly non-discriminatory politician in recent history (Jeremy Corbyn), and nod approvingly when liberal pundits applied the “racist” label to supporters of Bernie Sanders here in the U.S., simply because he happens to be a white male?
You say you hate Trump for attacking the “free press”? Well, where has the vaunted liberal establishment been throughout the persecution of Julian Assange – the worst attack on press freedom in decades? Where was that establishment’s respect for honest journalism while, for three years, it screamed its support for Russiagate, probably the silliest conspiracy theory in recent Washington history, and vilified skeptics as everything from agents of the Kremlin to closet Trumpists?
Yes, you say there are questions of “character” at stake. And you claim to be horrified at the allegations of sexual harassment Trump has collected over the years. But do you remember what happened when Tara Reade publicized similar accusations against Joe Biden? The liberal media had a field day excoriating her, questioning her motives, impugning her character; and Biden walked away unscathed, even nabbing the “proud and excited” endorsement of the feckless National Organization for Women. So much for “character.”
Trump, you add, is “authoritarian”? Maybe so. But what do you call the police state tactics unleashed by more than forty state governors – and celebrated by the Democratic Party leadership – that have included suspending legislatures, quashing civil liberties, ruling by “emergency” decrees and confining huge numbers of people in what amounts to house arrest? What have liberals done to oppose this massive attack on democracy? They’ve done nothing.
Yes, they did speak up when protesters objected to the theft of their rights: they called them right-wing lunatics and enemies of science. Why wasn’t such contempt for political dissent an example of “authoritarianism”? Could it be because Trump didn’t say it?
And wasn’t it those same liberals who proved their attachment to democracy by sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign – once it began to look as though he might actually emerge from the primaries as the front-runner? Did any liberals protest when Democratic Party leaders bullied each of the contenders to drop out of the race to ensure that the notably unpopular Biden would be the only available alternative to Trump? Isn’t it an “authoritarian” political structure that dictates to the voters what their choices are, instead of letting the public decide for itself?
Ah, but Trump professed too close a relationship to Russia to be fully trusted – is that it? Yet Joe Biden has boasted of his fealty to Israel – a state whose meddling in American politics makes other countries look like amateurs by comparison. And not a single establishment liberal or mainstream media outlet that I can think of accused him of disloyalty for taking such a stand.
I know, I know. In good liberal circles, one doesn’t mention such things. Joe Biden is the Democratic Party establishment’s chosen messiah to save the world from the Orange-Haired Menace. So we mustn’t even notice his incorrigible lying, his rotten political history, his obvious disdain for political dissent, his equally obvious mental decline – not even his choice of an unprincipled civil rights buster and police-violence enabler as a “progressive” running mate.
But while liberals may manage not to see the obvious, they haven’t succeeded in blinding the entire American electorate. And so, unsurprisingly, the voters are behaving more sensibly than the pundits who sanctimoniously chastise them. They have looked at the real Joe Biden, and they have had the inevitable, natural reaction.
You liberals would have done the same – if you’d been half as honest.
“Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds,” wrote Julien Benda in The Treason of the Intellectuals barely a century ago. Just as Republicans have used the 2020 campaign to smear all opponents as dangerous subversives, the Democrats have made a Trumpless White House an end that justifies any means – including media censorship, economic blackmail, and a full-throttle assault on civil liberties under the pretext of protecting the nation’s “health” – while simultaneously rejecting their own voters’ demands for Medicare for All.
And all this has been spiced with hypocrisy rank enough to have embarrassed Tartuffe himself – as the Democrats pose as the enemies of “hate” while execrating every voter who can’t swallow their bilge as either a racist, an idiot, a Nazi sympathizer or a potential mass murderer.
“I feel like leaving this country,” wrote one liberal I know on Facebook, deploring an America in which so many people could still cast ballots for The Donald.
And I want to tell him: you are mistaken, my friend. You and your fellow liberals aren’t just on the brink of leaving the country. You turned your back on its people a long time ago.
And if you don’t know that, they do.
Better awaken – and soon. Otherwise, by the time you finally start caring about the people you never bothered to think of as your equals, they may not be in any mood to listen to you.