The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Americans Against Unconstitutional Mask Mandates
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Good news: The anti-mask mandate movement is gaining steam. Americans yearning to breathe free are waking up from their pandemic stupor. Common sense and constitutional principles, now more than ever, are vital to a sovereign nation’s health.

On Monday, a federal judge rescinded Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s shutdown orders restricting gatherings, forcing “nonessential” business closures and directing citizens to stay at home to combat COVID-19. U.S. District Judge William Stickman determined that the sweeping measures violated “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.” He noted Wolf’s hypocrisy in severely limiting indoor and outdoor fairs, festivals, concerts and other gatherings and condemning a small anti-lockdown protest of small-business owners (whom he called “selfish,” “cowardly” and “unsafe”) — while marching with thousands of non-socially distancing Black Lives Matter radicals in Harrisburg in June.

Moreover, Stickman ruled, Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home order — a sweeping population unlike any “in the history of our Commonwealth and our Country” — violated the 14th Amendment’s due process rights to travel, association and privacy. Similarly, Wolf’s extreme and open-ended power grab designating and closing “nonessential” businesses undermined due process protections “against arbitrary government action.”

While Wolf’s measures may have been “well-intentioned,” Stickman concluded that “good intentions toward a laudable end are not alone enough to uphold governmental action against a constitutional challenge. Indeed, the greatest threats to our system of constitutional liberties may arise when the ends are laudable, and the intent is good — especially in a time of emergency.”

In Florida, conservative lawyer and state House Rep. Anthony Sabatini cheered the defeat of Wolf’s draconian COVID-19 orders. “Some in the Judiciary are finally waking up to the fact that the government is not always right — and that the constitution is not suspended during an emergency,” he told me. Sabatini has filed 15 ongoing challenges to the Sunshine State’s lockdown measures. “We’re looking forward to winning.”

In Colorado, I joined a similar lawsuit with state House Rep. Pat Neville to challenge Gov. Jared Polis’ whopping 166 COVID-19 executive orders, as well as multiple public health orders issued by state and county health departments. As in Pennsylvania, our state Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So we filed in Denver District Court two weeks ago. Polis and other government officials are on notice: No more kings.

Like Americans all across the country, Coloradans have been threatened with civil and criminal penalties for failure to wear a mask in public, and businesses are coerced by the governor into enforcing his mask order with zero input from voters or their elected representatives. Last week, Polis unilaterally extended the mask mandate by another 30 days. Our lawyer, Randy Corporon, laid down the law:

ORDER IT NOW

“The Colorado Constitution expressly prohibits the delegation by the legislature of lawmaking authority to the governor. While courts have made limited exceptions for emergency situations, we are now six months into this ’emergency’ with a governor who, on his own, extends his superpowers every 30 days. Enough is enough.”

Corporon’s law firm has filed a companion lawsuit seeking an injunction against “Power Grab” Polis on behalf of the family owners of the Bandimere Speedway — where more than 5,500 patriots joined us at a rally to “Stop the COVID Chaos” two weeks ago. Liberals and “Never-Trumpers” have condemned our constitutionally protected peaceful protest, while downplaying violent BLM and antifa riots that have turned downtown Denver into a Third World hellhole.

We are not alone. Parents in Tennessee are suing to free their children from unlawful and unhealthy mask mandates unsupported by science. Minnesotans have filed multiple lawsuits against Gov. Tim Walz. “It’s not the place of government to impose those requirements on us when there is no lawful authority to do so,” Doug Seaton, Upper Midwest Law Center President and attorney, argues. “That’s something that is against our self-governing principles that we’ve had in the state of Minnesota since we were a part of the northwest territory. We can’t have our governor override the separation of powers and the limited government we have and trample on rights, whatever good the intentions might be.”

In Boise, Idaho, this weekend, citizens held an anti-mask rally at the local Veterans Memorial park. Organizer Jeff Buck spoke for all of us: “We feel like we are being held hostage and we need to stand up for our rights or the government will take them away.”

Masks off. Fight on. This is the American way.

***

Update: Children getting mask-doctrinated in the schools…

Parents getting dragged out of school board meetings for not wearing masks…South Dakotan Reed Bender had a taser pointed at him before police forcibly removed him…

Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected] To find out more about Michelle Malkin and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

 
• Category: Culture/Society 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I appreciate yours and the many other legal efforts against this State-level totalitarianism very much, Mrs. Malkin. Not being a legally-oriented type in any sense, and haven’t no pull with any local pols, I haven’t acted along these lines. I feel that my part is to act locally, and that includes resistance against this Panic-Fest as much as I can get away with, along with ridicule of it.

    These efforts at the State and local level might get us some where. We need to understand that the ctrl-left, the other side in this war, doesn’t play by the same rules. These types have infiltrated all of the American institutions over the last 1/2 century, but we run into occasional fair and honest people at the lower levels of government.

    You know I’m almost always gonna’ have one quibble, so here’s one for this column: I don’t care if SCIENCE did say that the face diapers are the be-all-to-end-all to End Germs in Our Time. If I want to take my chances, I’ll take my chances. Just as the question comes up with vaccines, you do what you think you need to do, but don’t transfer your hysteria to my family. Believe you me, if this were Black Plague 2.0, I’d be hunkering down rather than continuing to write scathing sarcastic blog posts about the stupidity around me.

    Oh, speaking of which, check out: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10. Part 11. and Part 12.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Sink
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It is my understanding that Constitutional arguments do not work in Commercial courts.
    Our courts are commercial courts as far as I know since they all display the maritime USA flag with fringe attached. The maritime flag. Experts please chime in.

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Adam Smith
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Good afternoon Mr. Newman...

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    I have no problem with any recommendations or suggestions they would like to make, but this brazen totalitarian nonsense is as criminal as it is repulsive. Some powerful people need to be held accountable for the destruction they have wantonly caused. I do not think this is merely incompetence or stupidity. If Coronafest was caused by ineptitude alone it would not have been the global obedience training phenomenon that we have witnessed. The response was too fast and too uniform across the globe. It fit the agenda they have been writing about for years.

    This is a global crime of epic proportions.
    Some people even had foreknowledge of the event...

    Regarding the Science! of all things Coronafest it has become abundantly clear to me that what we are dealing with is massive criminal fraud on many levels. From the obviously fraudulent models and predictions from Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College of London to the fraudulent testing, case and death counts, the hypnotic hysteria inducing fakenews, to goosing the numbers with economic incentives for CovidCases! and respirator use, the inconsistent nonsensical edicts from bureaucrats with conflicting interests, etc... It's wildly surreal.

    Fraud everywhere at all levels.
    It's been a totalitarian wet dream.

    Just look at Victoria for example...
    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?
    Is that what happens when a people are disarmed?

    How did the cops and "government" get so drunk on their CovidPower so quickly?

    Is Victoria a testing ground for an agenda they would like to implement globally?

    I am deeply disappointed and concerned with the authoritarian insanity that has arisen in the last six months. Seeing people being assaulted and caged by armed "government" workers for not wearing a face diaper is discouraging. Learning how many people are not only willing but eager to call snitch lines on people for failure to obey silly commandments is inauspicious though unfortunately not surprising. If the powerful, dangerous, criminal psychopaths who released Coronafest upon the world are not dealt with accordingly I shudder to think about what they will unleash next.

    I am proud of people like Mrs. Malkin and the Bandimere's for doing their part to educate and mobilize people to help put an end to this hysterical nonsense. I'm proud of people like Eric Peters and the dedicated staff at PeakStupidity for being voices of reason and sanity in a world gone mad. I remain optimistic that we can still turn this thing around before it's too late. This is an opportunity to institute some badly needed positive change. I hope the world will rise to the occasion.

    I hope you and the Newman family have a great day.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

  2. Great article! I for one, a PA resident, am so tired of our King Wolf, and Court Jester Levine. This administration has been fraut with corruption since he was elected back in 2014. Look up his past running mate, Mike Stack, who had to resign in 2016 for corruption. WOLF picked him, and also is keeping all files regarding the corruption under wraps. Also, Wolf is being investigated by the FBI, 2019 fall, due to bribes/corruption from the fracking industry… Waiting for that show to start, AND we already had the FBI storm two Adult care facilities in Beaver County PA, for files, etc.. as these facilities had the most Covid deaths, courtesy of AKA Dr. Death Wolf, and The Grim Reaper Levine, even though she/he, was able to move his/her, Mom out of a memory care facility, during Covid, when the “peons of PA, were not allowed to visit our loved ones. THANK THE LORD FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGES HE APPOINTS. ITS ABOUT TIME THE CITIZENS OF PA GOT A FAIR HAND. THIS TYRANNY IN PA AND IN ALL UNJUST STATES MUST END. A government of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE… NO MORE KINGS!!! MAGA 2020…. RED PA.

  3. The vast majority of scientific research supports the effectiveness of masks in making politicians seem like they’re doing something.

    They’re also extremely effective, as a crucial part of drafting and implementing a larger CoVid-19 policy, in providing middle management with justifications for their continued employment at a time when downsizing is inevitable.

    Given how many people’s health depends upon politicians and middle management, it’s clear that masks are absolutely necessary for the public health… it’s simple clown world logic!

    • Agree: mark tapley, Rich
  4. I was under the impression that the US Supreme Court had already struck down the Constitution’s 1st Amendment when it refused to allow the Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley Church to conduct services with more than 50 people. Leftists, like John Roberts, have decided that the words written in the Bill of Rights are meaningless and that we now live by judicial fiat. Look how judges were able to prevent just about all of Trump’s agenda for going on 4 years now. They even said a president can’t rescind a presidential order when he attempted to rescind Obama’s DACA nonsense. We are a banana republic now and should just concentrate on getting our bananas on top.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    @Rich

    In totalitarian governments the Legislative, Executive and Judicial will always work together to suppress individual liberties. This is a case where the people need to rise up and throw out the Governor in a special election and put in officials that are willing to rescind this tyrannical ruling, ignoring the Supreme Court. This should never have gone to the Supreme Court in the first place and except for the illegally passed 14th amendment where it otherwise would have no jurisdiction in this state matter.

    The government will always use any contingency to suppress our freedoms, even our basic God given natural rights. These rights over our person, property, religious activity and freedom of assembly are inalienable and the despots at all levels of government need to be brought under our control. We are not here to serve the state but rather they are our servants.

    Trump is a puppet actor for the Zionists placed in office to rubber stamp the Zionist agenda. He tries to put on a show for the conservatives so the voters think they are really in control. The whole time the Rep. Dem. paradigm is moving further into socialist tyranny. Had the people refused to comply with any of this fabricated fake virus scam in the beginning this could have easily been pushed aside. Now you can be sure that the Zionists with their lackeys in the CDC will begin a new push now as cooler weather comes on. More fake virus, more fake tests and more fake numbers. Just as with the AIDS "epidemic" no real lab has purified, isolated, and verified this fake virus in a legitimate test.

  5. • Thanks: Zimriel
    • Replies: @Realist
    @gaston julia

    What is your point???

    No one knows if he contacted the virus at the rally...or if wearing a mask would have prevented it.

  6. It is amazing that people are not logical enough to investigate this virus scam for themselves but just take the word of the criminals at the CDC that have longstanding ties with big Pharma and the vaccine makers. We laugh at documentaries showing primitive natives in Borneo with bones in their nose dancing around and believing in witch doctors but lots of simps here are just as gullible. The CDC-WHO have been pumping these scams for years. H1N1, H5N1, SARS,Bird Flu, Swine Flu and the AIDS epidemic. Not one laboratory in the world has isolated and verified Covid 19 in a real peer reviewed scientific test much less the standard for all pathogens, the Koch postulate test. The same was true for AIDS.

    Remember the fake tents, and the “overflowing” empty hospitals, the phony hospital ship and the calls for the deadly respirators. CDC criminal Debra Brix even said on tv “we have told the hospitals to tag everything possible as Covid 19.” And they do because they get paid a lot more. In February CDC head Fauchi admitted in an interview now deleted that the masks were counterproductive. The slavery masks are for conditioning the idiots to take orders and to keep them from forgetting about the fake virus. This is an attack on our basic natural rights to be left alone. Under our constitution the same people cannot make laws and enforce them and emergency authority given to the governors would be good for only 30 days. That still gives no one authority to violate our person, our movements, our business, and our freedom of assembly. These are unalienable rights not subject to government edict.

    Note the following report by Reporter Jon Rappaport on the methods always used to promote these fake viruses:

    [MORE]

    ONE: Through many meetings, exercises, planning sessions, a structure is welded in place to promote and launch the IDEA of an epidemic. World Health Organization, CDC, influential public health officials attached to governments around the world, etc.

    TWO: There is a purported incident. An outbreak. The most obvious cause is intentionally overlooked. For example, horrendous air pollution, or the grotesque feces and urine pollution on a giant commercial pig factory-farm. Instead, the world is told a new virus has been found. Local researchers, if any, are augmented by researchers from CDC, WHO.

    THREE: There is no air-tight chain of evidence explaining exactly how the purported new virus was discovered. From details released, there is NO proof of discovery by convincing methods, no proper unified study of MANY supposed epidemic patients.

    FOUR: But WHO/CDC tells the world this is an epidemic in the making, caused by the new virus. The promotion and propaganda/media apparatus moves into high gear. Ominous pronouncements.

    FIVE: Diagnostic tests for the unproven new virus are rolled out. They spit out false “proof” of “infection” like coins from a jackpot slot machine. These false-positives are an inherent feature of the tests.

    SIX: Thus, all case numbers and death numbers, which are based on the tests, are rendered meaningless. And…they were already meaningless, because the supposed new virus “being tested for” was never properly discovered in the first place.

    SEVEN: Nevertheless, these tests (plus useless eyeball diagnosis) are used to build official reports on case numbers. For the duration of the “epidemic,” reports keep coming, and escalating numbers are trumpeted. Within the basically meaningless structure of these reports, there is fiddling with totals, to make them more impressive and frightening.

    EIGHT: Real people are really getting sick and dying, but for the most part, they are people who are dying from traditional and long-standing conditions—flu-like illness, pneumonia, other lung infections, etc. These people are “re-packaged” under the new epidemic label—e.g., “COVID”. The official description of the “new epidemic disease”—the clinical symptoms—is sufficiently general to easily allow this re-packaging.

    NINE: If there is new illness, it can be explained by causes having nothing to do with the purported new virus. For example, a toxic vaccine campaign. A highly destructive drug. Highly toxic pesticides.

    TEN: Over time, the definition of the epidemic is arbitrarily widened to include more symptoms and clinical features, in order to inflate case numbers.

    ELEVEN: Control of information about the “epidemic” is hardened at the top. The talking heads, from the press and public health agencies, know as much about actual science as rabbits know about drone strikes. But they are “in charge.” Dissident information is attacked and censored.

    TWELVE: Medical drugs and procedures (e.g., ventilators) used to treat patients are quite harmful. If a vaccine is rolled out, it, too, is toxic. Illness and death resulting from these and other medical attacks are counted as “epidemic cases caused by the virus.”

    THIRTEEN: ABOVE ALL OTHER ILLUSIONS, the main deception is: “the epidemic is one disease or syndrome caused by one germ.” This is sold with unceasing propaganda. Most people fall for it. They will even argue among themselves about which “it” is the single cause of the “it” disease. There is no “it” cause or disease.

    FOURTEEN: The public is sold lie after lie about contagion and the “spread” of the “it.”

    FIFTEEN: The public chants (as if no one has ever died before), “People are dying, it must be the virus.”

    SIXTEEN: The virus fairy tale always functions as a cover story for government or corporate or medical crimes. It obscures and hides these crimes. For example, a large factory is spewing horrendous pollution into the ground and water of an area, and people are getting sick and dying? Wait, the researchers say, the cause is actually a new virus no one has ever seen before.

    As I wrote at the outset of the COVID illusion, the only difference this time, in 2020, is the weight of the lies—because they led to the lockdowns and the economic devastation. This is West Nile, SARS, Swine Flu, Zika, writ large.

    Needless to say, the persons and groups responsible for launching these illusion-operations must hide their crimes.

    The criminals have their weapons, of course. Among their most powerful: control of the press, and arcane technical language which pretends to relevance. This language is so dense, the uninitiated stand no chance of penetrating it.

    For instance, researchers can babble for hours about their vaunted diagnostic test, the PCR. However, the simple truth is, the test has never been vetted. The test has never been tested in the real world outside the lab.

    I have written about this extensively. Using a little guideline called SCIENCE, you would “test the test” by lining up, say, a thousand patients, some healthy, some sick from a supposed virus. Any virus. Tissue samples would be taken from each patient.

    PCR mavens would run these samples through their equipment, reporting which patients show what they call high “viral load.”

    This means: these particular patients have millions and millions of virus actively replicating in their bodies, and they will be unmistakably and visibly sick.

    The PCR princes would then announce, “Patients 3,45,65,76,132…are all definitely sick.”

    Now we un-blind the study and see what’s what and who’s who. Are these designated patients ill or are they running marathons? That’s called simple scientific method. Not technical gobbledygook.

    This chunk of research has never been done. It never will be done. It’s too real. Too naked. Proponents of the PCR would have too much to lose, if their assessments of who are healthy and who are sick turned out to be absurdly wrong, and their arcane technical rhetoric about the PCR ended up being useless gibberish.

    I include this illustration to indicate there are, indeed, ways of exposing professional liars, if you change the venue on them, if you use common sense, if you stand outside their self-appointed temples of mystical pretense and observe what their lies look like when you boil them down to human terms…

    Here is another study of the PCR test that has never been done and never will be done, in the real world: line up a thousand patients, take tissues samples from them and send the samples to 40 different labs. Have the labs run their PCRs and announce their specific findings. Compare the results. You can bet the farm the labs will come up with contrary results.

    This is part of a pattern: keep “scientific details” close to the vest; keep them “in-house”; don’t permit large-scale independent studies that will either confirm or deny basic tenets of official research.

    COVID is a fraud from top to bottom. From beginning to end.

    • Agree: Adam Smith, Sya Beerens
    • Replies: @CatcatMeow
    @mark tapley

    But the CDC, along with the WHO, Fauci, and the US Surgeon General, did tell the trutb on this. In March, they said that masks worn by the public are not effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and that they can be harmful when used by untrained people.

    That was the view that was supported by science. Humanity has done a lot of research on the topic of respiratory viruses over the decades since viruses were discovered. For 20 years, scientists have studed the disease SARS, (caused by the SARS-CoV-1 virus), the close cousin to COVID-19 (which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). MERS is another pea in the pod. .

    The way these SARS family coronaviruses behave is not much different than influenza, which we've been studying for much longer. The Spanish flu pandemic started over a hundred years ago!

    The conclusion reached after all of this science was what we were told early in the pandemic. Masks among the public are not effective, and can be dangerous when used incorrectly (as everyone does). A month later, the advice flip-flopped, and soon after that, the petty tyrants across the fruited plain started using the CDC's new advice as the justification to face-diaper as many people as they could.

    They did this in the name of science, even though science had indicated just the opposite. Science is a process, and it's not a rapid one. A hypothesis (meaning an idea that is hypothetical) is proposed, and a study is designed to test it. Experiments are performed, and the result is written up and submitted to a journal for publication.

    That doesn't make it "proven" yet. Not even close!

    The study will be criticized by a lot of scientists who know enough about the topic (and the process of science) to be able to spot weaknesses. They point them out, and the study's author addresses them, often by revised experiments or additional data analyses. The updated study is published again, and the process repeats. If at any point it appears that the conclusion is no longer supported by the evidence, the study is withdrawn (and that happens a lot). If it still looks good after all the scrutiny, other researchers will attempt to duplicate the results. For a study to be valid, it has to be repeatable.

    Only after it runs that gauntlet and manages to survive does a study begin to be considered as potentially valid. Even then, it's just one study, and if the idea it means to overturn is supported by many previously validated studies, it will take many validated studies to the contrary to turn the ship around. A study that seems to be valid and that contradicts existing theories on a given matter will certainly attract the interest of more scientists, as that kind of thing is interesting to them, and if the new idea is actually reflective of reality, the new idea will be increasingly accepted as more evidence accumulates. If not, the increased attention will eventually find the error that caused it to look valid when it wasn't.

    That process takes years under the best of circumstances, and we're still in the "fog of war," so to speak, of the pandemic. Trying to study the pandemic from within that pandemic is difficult, as the researchers are human beings trying to live in difficult times like the rest of us. Many such scientists are professors at universities (around the world) that are closed because of the pandemic.

    The words of the CDC, WHO, etc., in March (when they said masks don't work) still stand.

  7. Non American supports policies to Americans that will ensure fewer Americans in future.
    Ho, hum.

  8. What can be done to start a suit in each state? Is the ACLJ or Fightback willing to initiate suits in other states, if complainants come forward? And put up some cash?

    Those governors claiming “science” need to have their “science” and ‘scientists” subjected to some discovery, including the actual science, as well as cross-examinable testimony.

    This whole mask thing is dumb, and my hope (and sense is) that it is going to unravel, slowly at first then quickly, if Americans pick up the steam and push forward.

    It should be OPTIONAL like pretty much everything else. If you feel so scared that you cannot go out in a mask unless other people are wearing a mask, then you should stay home. Period. You can do like everyone was doing in the early phases and order all your stuff online, eat at home and watch TV or whatever.

  9. I can’t believe the coronahoax is still happening.

  10. Learn the truth about why all vaccines are a dangerous fraud. By Principia Scientific:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=hChT-Qgr7v0&feature=emb_logo

  11. @Rich
    I was under the impression that the US Supreme Court had already struck down the Constitution's 1st Amendment when it refused to allow the Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley Church to conduct services with more than 50 people. Leftists, like John Roberts, have decided that the words written in the Bill of Rights are meaningless and that we now live by judicial fiat. Look how judges were able to prevent just about all of Trump's agenda for going on 4 years now. They even said a president can't rescind a presidential order when he attempted to rescind Obama's DACA nonsense. We are a banana republic now and should just concentrate on getting our bananas on top.

    Replies: @mark tapley

    In totalitarian governments the Legislative, Executive and Judicial will always work together to suppress individual liberties. This is a case where the people need to rise up and throw out the Governor in a special election and put in officials that are willing to rescind this tyrannical ruling, ignoring the Supreme Court. This should never have gone to the Supreme Court in the first place and except for the illegally passed 14th amendment where it otherwise would have no jurisdiction in this state matter.

    The government will always use any contingency to suppress our freedoms, even our basic God given natural rights. These rights over our person, property, religious activity and freedom of assembly are inalienable and the despots at all levels of government need to be brought under our control. We are not here to serve the state but rather they are our servants.

    Trump is a puppet actor for the Zionists placed in office to rubber stamp the Zionist agenda. He tries to put on a show for the conservatives so the voters think they are really in control. The whole time the Rep. Dem. paradigm is moving further into socialist tyranny. Had the people refused to comply with any of this fabricated fake virus scam in the beginning this could have easily been pushed aside. Now you can be sure that the Zionists with their lackeys in the CDC will begin a new push now as cooler weather comes on. More fake virus, more fake tests and more fake numbers. Just as with the AIDS “epidemic” no real lab has purified, isolated, and verified this fake virus in a legitimate test.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  12. There have been street protests against the mask requirements and other social distancing measures in Berlin, Munich and London. But when the protest march is itself considered as the public health menace (leaving aside, of course, BLM protests and riots) it’s hard to organize one that the authorities can’t shut down very quickly. I admire the people who are trying. COVID-19 will be seen as historians as one of the greatest mass delusions and hysteria of all time.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  13. It’s understandable people on the phony left pushing this covid-19(84) bullshit but I find it most disturbing that a lot of people on the real left buy into it. I think some of us on the real left have more in common with conservatives than these phony liberals.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  14. @Achmed E. Newman
    I appreciate yours and the many other legal efforts against this State-level totalitarianism very much, Mrs. Malkin. Not being a legally-oriented type in any sense, and haven't no pull with any local pols, I haven't acted along these lines. I feel that my part is to act locally, and that includes resistance against this Panic-Fest as much as I can get away with, along with ridicule of it.

    These efforts at the State and local level might get us some where. We need to understand that the ctrl-left, the other side in this war, doesn't play by the same rules. These types have infiltrated all of the American institutions over the last 1/2 century, but we run into occasional fair and honest people at the lower levels of government.

    You know I'm almost always gonna' have one quibble, so here's one for this column: I don't care if SCIENCE did say that the face diapers are the be-all-to-end-all to End Germs in Our Time. If I want to take my chances, I'll take my chances. Just as the question comes up with vaccines, you do what you think you need to do, but don't transfer your hysteria to my family. Believe you me, if this were Black Plague 2.0, I'd be hunkering down rather than continuing to write scathing sarcastic blog posts about the stupidity around me.

    Oh, speaking of which, check out: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10. Part 11. and Part 12.

    Replies: @Sink, @Adam Smith

    It is my understanding that Constitutional arguments do not work in Commercial courts.
    Our courts are commercial courts as far as I know since they all display the maritime USA flag with fringe attached. The maritime flag. Experts please chime in.

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Sink

    I dunno ... I once beat several parking tickets by claiming the daily repeats constituted double jeopardy.

    Our overlords know the old Maoist dicta that political power grows out of the end of a barrel of a gun, which is why they’ve militarised the police forces of the country and insisted people shelter at home. As Erik Honiker finally realised at the end of the DDR, you can’t just ignore, much less gun down 100k citizens in the streets and get away with it.

    , @Adam Smith
    @Sink

    The gold fringe flag is indeed emblematic of an admiralty or maritime court. Because of the commerce clause and the adhesion contracts that most people have entered into unknowingly, unwillingly and involuntarily most people do not have access to a court of law. You will have to challenge the validity of those unconscionable contracts.

    I am no expert, but I am under the impression that if you want to gain access to a court of law you have to challenge jurisdiction every step of the way. Motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Do not enter a plea as that is acquiescing to the jurisdiction of the court. Instead you would demur. You will have to appear before the court by "special appearance". You cannot hire an attorney to do this for you. An attorney is an officer of the court. By hiring an attorney to "represent you" you not only become "subject to the jurisdiction of the court" but you are in essence saying that you are a child or someone of unsound mind, incapable of handling you own legal affairs.

    If you are to challenge the jurisdiction of the "court" you will have to do so in your own proper person (in propria persona). Someone else cannot challenge jurisdiction for you. If you do not challenge jurisdiction early on you cannot bring it up on appeal.

    Remember, you are not "representing yourself", you are yourself.
    (Sometimes there are ways to win in court as a pro se litigant. Sometimes not.)

    If you have committed a real crime there will be an injured party. A corpus delicti.
    No injured party, no crime.

    Most "courts" are not judicial courts. They are administrative tribunals.
    They are part of the executive branch.

    Ask the person in the black robed costume...

    "Is this a judicial proceeding?"
    "Is this an administrative proceeding?"

    It cannot be both because of the separation of powers doctrine.

    Remember you have a right to a judicial proceeding.
    Be nice but firm.
    "I demand a judicial proceeding."

    You will have to be wise as a serpent and meek as a lamb.

    Keep in mind it is hard to get a "fair trial" in a kangaroo court.
    America is no longer a nation of laws.
    She is a kakistocracy now.

    Good Luck!

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Sink


    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.
     
    AGREED, wholeheartedly!

    BTW, Mr. Sink, the CDC itself published (page is linked-to in my link-to page) the number 6%. 6% of the COVID-assigned deaths were without co-morbidities. Of the other 94% of these deaths "WITH the Kung Flu", there were an average of 2.6 co-morbidities. Vindication, Bitchez!.
  15. For any Oregonians reading this. I have signed a retainer with a lawyer to try to end Oregon’s emergency, or at least limit the Governor’s powers drastically, using a separation of powers argument much like the argument in Minnesota.

    I have set up a GoFundMe page to support that effort. Please contact me through that page if you would like further information or can support the effort in any way.

  16. OMG!!! Tina baby!! I just fell in love!!

  17. It seems to me that most of these anti-mask protests feature pretty visceral, at times violent conflict between the Aged 40-65 White Female (Karen?) crowd and the Aged 18-35 White Female (Hermione?) set.

    This is of course viewed on my perch from China. Undoubtedly, other Unz Readers to have more immediate experience and will cede this observation to them if they do:

    I suspect soon we’ll have an open race war between men of different color and creed, but I’m curious to see how this intra-white female generational struggle plays out. My bets are on the younger ones, as the Sephora Lysenkoists have been putting more xeno-testosterone in their multicolor makeup products.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Supply and Demand

    So, it's a catfight you're looking forward to watching on TV from China? I'm rooting for the women with the fewer masks.... and other clothes ... on.

  18. @Sink
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It is my understanding that Constitutional arguments do not work in Commercial courts.
    Our courts are commercial courts as far as I know since they all display the maritime USA flag with fringe attached. The maritime flag. Experts please chime in.

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman

    I dunno … I once beat several parking tickets by claiming the daily repeats constituted double jeopardy.

    Our overlords know the old Maoist dicta that political power grows out of the end of a barrel of a gun, which is why they’ve militarised the police forces of the country and insisted people shelter at home. As Erik Honiker finally realised at the end of the DDR, you can’t just ignore, much less gun down 100k citizens in the streets and get away with it.

  19. My understanding of this movement is that you believe that COVID19 is part of a conspiracy to control the masses – pretty much an international conspiracy at that – the statistics are all false.

    That this virus is no worse that a bad case of seasonal flu and that the numbers of deaths have been grossly exaggerated as part of the conspiracy and that the mortality associated with COVID19 is also in line with that of flu.

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line – the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission – but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.

    I personally don’t have special knowledge in this matter and I have only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) but I would point out that:

    (1) It’s clear that, unlike flu, there’s no communal immunity to COVID19
    (2) The virus is pretty contagious
    (3) The virus has a significant mortality and can engender chronic morbidities
    (4) All the medical professionals I know are using face-masks and, presumably and collectively, they have more insight than I do – or than Ms Malkin does.

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    I note that social responsibility reaches high levels in Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong-Kong and Japan where masks are worn just about universally and where COVID19 has had considerably less impact even though all are in China’s back-yard.

    I also note that social responsibility reaches a low point in the USA and UK – allegedly among the worst afflicted countries.

    I personally believe this is a truly nasty bug and I dread the possibility of getting sick enough to need intensive care. I wear a mask on all occasions required or when I feel it’s necessary.

    And, even if I didn’t believe in wearing masks I’d still do it because otherwise I will upset others and, who knows? I could be wrong.

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don’t believe in face masks seems to me petty – and stupid!

    So BAAAA! To you.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @macilrae


    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis...
     
    That's what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that's what she just got done writing about in this very column!

    You sound like Ron Unz, making up a completely erroneous theory of what we "hoaxers" (Ron Unz terminology) are pissed off about. I don't care where the freakin' virus came from - I've seen 'em come and go before and know that this is no Black Plague, 2.0, because I have some perspective.

    I don't think the Infotainment Panic-fest response was a conspiracy either, personally, though I wouldn't rule it out. Usually, it's just a lot of the same stupid and/or evil people in the Lyin' Press and governments who are on the same page.


    ... – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.
     
    One protest at a time... How 'bout you get off your ass about that one? Scared the Black Plague 2.0 will gitcha?

    Replies: @anonymous, @macilrae

    , @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    Assuming we really did have a virus rather than just another in a long line of medical psyops. here is how effective the face diapers are:


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrZ6AWG9vrXN/

    Replies: @macilrae

    , @Ivan K.
    @macilrae

    Hi, Micilrae,

    You say you only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) .

    The virus, has apparently not been isolated:
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation
    (https://i.ibb.co/WW42tdj/cdc-virus-0.jpg)
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Rooster+in+the+River+of+Rats

    So, it's hard to be sure that somebody has caught "the" virus, or instead caught another germ, or instead suffered from a collapse of the immune system, etc.

    You also say that all the medical professionals you know are using face-masks. It reminds me, I was shocked to learn that there are surgeons that do not use facemasks in the surgical theater. They, alongside their more cautious colleagues, have been a part of a series of studies over a 45 year long period to determine the effectiveness of surgical masks when used professionally. http://12160.info/m/blogpost?id=2649739:BlogPost:2035264 As you can make sure for yourself, every single one of the nearly twenty major studies failed to find evidence that it happens, i.e. that masks protect even under the ideal conditions for that.

    Very strange ... even for a skeptic.

    And, you emphasize:

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    Yes! I've been saying that for months! How can you explain that?

    I've looked into it, and found clues here:

    (https://i.ibb.co/pJ8mcqN/Meyssan-Thierry-on-the-current-crisis-origins-16-May-2020.jpg)

    and here

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/jon-rappoport/the-pandemic-pattern-how-the-illusion-is-built/

    And finally, this book here

    (https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679)

    Incidentally, it provides a theory that accounts for the failure of all those facemask studies.

    But, before I learned all of that, I already thought it's a hoax. Because, the societal order (as it was in January) could not be sustained. The financial system - most of us know... Pharma: its total liabilities are $140 trillion. And, lastly, there has never been a transition from a dominance of one global power, like the US, to another, like China, without a ... war between them ...for which you need militarisation.

    Sorry for the length of the post, it may appear more patronising than it was meant to be.
    With best wishes

    Replies: @macilrae

  20. @gaston julia
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_FMhzwJlw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKKK42ZS_OU

    Replies: @Realist

    What is your point???

    No one knows if he contacted the virus at the rally…or if wearing a mask would have prevented it.

  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    I appreciate yours and the many other legal efforts against this State-level totalitarianism very much, Mrs. Malkin. Not being a legally-oriented type in any sense, and haven't no pull with any local pols, I haven't acted along these lines. I feel that my part is to act locally, and that includes resistance against this Panic-Fest as much as I can get away with, along with ridicule of it.

    These efforts at the State and local level might get us some where. We need to understand that the ctrl-left, the other side in this war, doesn't play by the same rules. These types have infiltrated all of the American institutions over the last 1/2 century, but we run into occasional fair and honest people at the lower levels of government.

    You know I'm almost always gonna' have one quibble, so here's one for this column: I don't care if SCIENCE did say that the face diapers are the be-all-to-end-all to End Germs in Our Time. If I want to take my chances, I'll take my chances. Just as the question comes up with vaccines, you do what you think you need to do, but don't transfer your hysteria to my family. Believe you me, if this were Black Plague 2.0, I'd be hunkering down rather than continuing to write scathing sarcastic blog posts about the stupidity around me.

    Oh, speaking of which, check out: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10. Part 11. and Part 12.

    Replies: @Sink, @Adam Smith

    Good afternoon Mr. Newman…

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    I have no problem with any recommendations or suggestions they would like to make, but this brazen totalitarian nonsense is as criminal as it is repulsive. Some powerful people need to be held accountable for the destruction they have wantonly caused. I do not think this is merely incompetence or stupidity. If Coronafest was caused by ineptitude alone it would not have been the global obedience training phenomenon that we have witnessed. The response was too fast and too uniform across the globe. It fit the agenda they have been writing about for years.

    This is a global crime of epic proportions.
    Some people even had foreknowledge of the event…

    Regarding the Science! of all things Coronafest it has become abundantly clear to me that what we are dealing with is massive criminal fraud on many levels. From the obviously fraudulent models and predictions from Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College of London to the fraudulent testing, case and death counts, the hypnotic hysteria inducing fakenews, to goosing the numbers with economic incentives for CovidCases! and respirator use, the inconsistent nonsensical edicts from bureaucrats with conflicting interests, etc… It’s wildly surreal.

    Fraud everywhere at all levels.
    It’s been a totalitarian wet dream.

    Just look at Victoria for example…
    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?
    Is that what happens when a people are disarmed?

    How did the cops and “government” get so drunk on their CovidPower so quickly?

    Is Victoria a testing ground for an agenda they would like to implement globally?

    I am deeply disappointed and concerned with the authoritarian insanity that has arisen in the last six months. Seeing people being assaulted and caged by armed “government” workers for not wearing a face diaper is discouraging. Learning how many people are not only willing but eager to call snitch lines on people for failure to obey silly commandments is inauspicious though unfortunately not surprising. If the powerful, dangerous, criminal psychopaths who released Coronafest upon the world are not dealt with accordingly I shudder to think about what they will unleash next.

    I am proud of people like Mrs. Malkin and the Bandimere’s for doing their part to educate and mobilize people to help put an end to this hysterical nonsense. I’m proud of people like Eric Peters and the dedicated staff at PeakStupidity for being voices of reason and sanity in a world gone mad. I remain optimistic that we can still turn this thing around before it’s too late. This is an opportunity to institute some badly needed positive change. I hope the world will rise to the occasion.

    I hope you and the Newman family have a great day.

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Adam Smith


    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?
     
    Business as usual, as far as government metastasis is concerned. (FWIW: I'm in Victoria).

    This whole power-grab is what people simply refuse to understand about the 'political means': the dynamic consequences.

    Over time, governments will expand their power, because of the types of people attracted to political life (i.e., megalomanaical sociopaths); this dynamic will be almost impossible to stop because of the immense cost of obtaining redress and the institutional hurdles involved.

    If people go through the approved channels to challenge government creep, they will wind up dead (from old age or COVID) or broke before there is any final resolution.

    The judge mentioned in the article is a Federal judge, but he's only in a District court: if the state politicians wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the reversal, they would appeal it all the way to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS would side with the governor. The BlackRobes are power's lickspittle: they are selected by politicians after a lifetime of proving that they are 'safe hands'.

    .

    Similarly, when Clive Palmer challenged the constitutionality of the Western Australia border closure, the preliminary Federal Court dickhead (Darryl Rangia) thought that the fact(sic) that border closures might be effective was relevant.

    The effectiveness of the border closures is absolutely not relevant: the issue is whether the Western Australian government has a valid constitutional ground on which to pass legislation that closes the fucking border. Border closures prima facie violate s92 of the Australian Constitution.

    Little wonder it took Rangiah 17 years to get silk - in Queensland.

    He did law at QUT - a glorified TAFE - 5 years after he failed to get an Honours degree (in Economics) from ANU.

    So he's not numerate enough to understand statistical arguments as to whether or not a border closure has any obectively-verifiable merit as a tool against a moderately-harmful virus that very rarely causes a respiratory illness that can be lethal to very old people and chronically-ill people. (99.7% of all people who contract coronavirus, suffer no long-term harm - and at the moment we are in a 'casedemic'... fuck-all people are dying or have died: Australia will lose about a normal years' worth of deaths from Influenza-Like Illnesses, including COVID19).

    Being objectively second-rate doesn't matter once you get picked by the political class - you get to wear the silly costume, so all your inadequacy is washed away.

    This is why Australia needs a Federal Judicial Commission and a Federal Corruption Commission - even though such things end up full of 'safe hands' political apparatchiks: otherwise, it will become clear to people faced with manifest judicial/political bias/corruption, that they would be best served to take matters into their own hands.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  22. @Sink
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It is my understanding that Constitutional arguments do not work in Commercial courts.
    Our courts are commercial courts as far as I know since they all display the maritime USA flag with fringe attached. The maritime flag. Experts please chime in.

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman

    The gold fringe flag is indeed emblematic of an admiralty or maritime court. Because of the commerce clause and the adhesion contracts that most people have entered into unknowingly, unwillingly and involuntarily most people do not have access to a court of law. You will have to challenge the validity of those unconscionable contracts.

    I am no expert, but I am under the impression that if you want to gain access to a court of law you have to challenge jurisdiction every step of the way. Motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Do not enter a plea as that is acquiescing to the jurisdiction of the court. Instead you would demur. You will have to appear before the court by “special appearance”. You cannot hire an attorney to do this for you. An attorney is an officer of the court. By hiring an attorney to “represent you” you not only become “subject to the jurisdiction of the court” but you are in essence saying that you are a child or someone of unsound mind, incapable of handling you own legal affairs.

    If you are to challenge the jurisdiction of the “court” you will have to do so in your own proper person (in propria persona). Someone else cannot challenge jurisdiction for you. If you do not challenge jurisdiction early on you cannot bring it up on appeal.

    Remember, you are not “representing yourself”, you are yourself.
    (Sometimes there are ways to win in court as a pro se litigant. Sometimes not.)

    If you have committed a real crime there will be an injured party. A corpus delicti.
    No injured party, no crime.

    Most “courts” are not judicial courts. They are administrative tribunals.
    They are part of the executive branch.

    Ask the person in the black robed costume…

    “Is this a judicial proceeding?”
    “Is this an administrative proceeding?”

    It cannot be both because of the separation of powers doctrine.

    Remember you have a right to a judicial proceeding.
    Be nice but firm.
    “I demand a judicial proceeding.”

    You will have to be wise as a serpent and meek as a lamb.

    Keep in mind it is hard to get a “fair trial” in a kangaroo court.
    America is no longer a nation of laws.
    She is a kakistocracy now.

    Good Luck!

    • Agree: mark tapley
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Adam Smith

    I agree that it is a systematically corrupt, unfair, anti-liberty, and now anti-white government, and that definitely includes the judicial system.

    But there are some errors in the statements above. First, there is personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. If you fail to assert lack of personal jurisdiction early on, you can be found to have waived the argument. But a lack of SUBJECT-MATTER jurisdiction need not ever be raised by a party.

    Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect. The trial court always has the duty to ascertain its own subject-matter jurisdiction and dismiss the action if it is lacking. If the trial court fails to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction or simply erroneously concludes that it has such jurisdiction, then the losing party certainly may raise the lack of SMJ before the appellate court.

    Next, hiring an attorney has no effect whatsoever on the analysis of either personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. It is bad advice to urge people to refrain from hiring a lawyer on the mistaken premise that it would deprive the party of the right to contest jurisdiction.

    And no, Article III federal courts are not administrative tribunals. They are judicial courts. They’re full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature. Either way, they need to thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.

    While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.

    To add insult to injury, these scumbag judges are paid their full final salary as a pension for the rest of their lives — something that those of us paying their salaries can only dream of,

    Some of my best friends are ex-attorneys ;)

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  23. @macilrae
    My understanding of this movement is that you believe that COVID19 is part of a conspiracy to control the masses - pretty much an international conspiracy at that - the statistics are all false.

    That this virus is no worse that a bad case of seasonal flu and that the numbers of deaths have been grossly exaggerated as part of the conspiracy and that the mortality associated with COVID19 is also in line with that of flu.

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line - the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission - but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.

    I personally don't have special knowledge in this matter and I have only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) but I would point out that:

    (1) It's clear that, unlike flu, there's no communal immunity to COVID19
    (2) The virus is pretty contagious
    (3) The virus has a significant mortality and can engender chronic morbidities
    (4) All the medical professionals I know are using face-masks and, presumably and collectively, they have more insight than I do - or than Ms Malkin does.

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    I note that social responsibility reaches high levels in Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong-Kong and Japan where masks are worn just about universally and where COVID19 has had considerably less impact even though all are in China's back-yard.

    I also note that social responsibility reaches a low point in the USA and UK - allegedly among the worst afflicted countries.

    I personally believe this is a truly nasty bug and I dread the possibility of getting sick enough to need intensive care. I wear a mask on all occasions required or when I feel it's necessary.

    And, even if I didn't believe in wearing masks I'd still do it because otherwise I will upset others and, who knows? I could be wrong.

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government's handling of this crisis - or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don't believe in face masks seems to me petty - and stupid!

    So BAAAA! To you.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @mark tapley, @Ivan K.

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis…

    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!

    You sound like Ron Unz, making up a completely erroneous theory of what we “hoaxers” (Ron Unz terminology) are pissed off about. I don’t care where the freakin’ virus came from – I’ve seen ’em come and go before and know that this is no Black Plague, 2.0, because I have some perspective.

    I don’t think the Infotainment Panic-fest response was a conspiracy either, personally, though I wouldn’t rule it out. Usually, it’s just a lot of the same stupid and/or evil people in the Lyin’ Press and governments who are on the same page.

    … – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    One protest at a time… How ’bout you get off your ass about that one? Scared the Black Plague 2.0 will gitcha?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Potty shout all you want, but a columnist’s background and perspective are fair game. Isn’t that why you often tell us what you’ve had to say at your website?

    Mrs. Malkin is an unrepentant Neocon. She helped to monger the wars begun during the Cheney Administration, praising people like John Bolton.

    She’s since moved to Megachurch, Colorado, and rebranded as an anti-Invite the World, family values type. Never even typing “Bolton” during his last White House gig, she now pushes reader buttons about Big Gov in contexts like this column. But she remains Exceptional! and has never renounced her support for Invading the World.

    A few months ago, when the Dempanic hit, provenance of the virus(es) was a hot topic. Mrs. Malkin chose to be a Chinadidit! smear artist in her first couple columns here at Unz Review. (Weren’t you on that bandwagon, too?) She (and her fans) have since ignored repeated requests to tell the readership what Uncle Sam should be doing in and about China, Gaza, Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

    And when it comes to government overreaction to a virus, what has she had to say about the 96-0 Senate vote to bail out Wall Street in the CARES Act?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @macilrae
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!
     
    She's writing to say that mask-wearing is "unconstitutional", futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity - and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not - a huge factor is also the "freedoms" in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences - and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people - and it you're not, you could be infecting them. True, you'll get a lot of attention if that's what you need.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @Adam Smith, @Piglet

  24. @Supply and Demand
    It seems to me that most of these anti-mask protests feature pretty visceral, at times violent conflict between the Aged 40-65 White Female (Karen?) crowd and the Aged 18-35 White Female (Hermione?) set.

    This is of course viewed on my perch from China. Undoubtedly, other Unz Readers to have more immediate experience and will cede this observation to them if they do:

    I suspect soon we'll have an open race war between men of different color and creed, but I'm curious to see how this intra-white female generational struggle plays out. My bets are on the younger ones, as the Sephora Lysenkoists have been putting more xeno-testosterone in their multicolor makeup products.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    So, it’s a catfight you’re looking forward to watching on TV from China? I’m rooting for the women with the fewer masks…. and other clothes … on.

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
  25. @Sink
    @Achmed E. Newman

    It is my understanding that Constitutional arguments do not work in Commercial courts.
    Our courts are commercial courts as far as I know since they all display the maritime USA flag with fringe attached. The maritime flag. Experts please chime in.

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    Replies: @The Alarmist, @Adam Smith, @Achmed E. Newman

    Also There is not emergency anymore(or ever?). Emergency facilities have been dismantled, hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid patients, deaths are near zero.

    AGREED, wholeheartedly!

    BTW, Mr. Sink, the CDC itself published (page is linked-to in my link-to page) the number 6%. 6% of the COVID-assigned deaths were without co-morbidities. Of the other 94% of these deaths “WITH the Kung Flu”, there were an average of 2.6 co-morbidities. Vindication, Bitchez!.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  26. “U.S. District Judge William Stickman determined that the sweeping measures violated “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

    Per usual, Michelle is not offering the proper context, as the judge was employing his own legal standard separate from other well-established cases.

    On Monday, September 14, U.S. District Court Judge William S. Stickman IV became the first federal or state judge in Pennsylvania to strike down Governor Tom Wolf’s emergency orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following briefing and an evidentiary hearing, Judge Stickman held that the orders restricting the size of gatherings, ordering Pennsylvania residents to stay at home, and closing businesses deemed non-life-sustaining all violate the U.S. Constitution. The decision is contrary to rulings by other courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court, other Pennsylvania District Courts, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – which have upheld similar state restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus. Learn more about those cases here** and here***.

    These prior decisions have utilized a deferential standard of review reflecting the state’s broad police power with respect to the maintenance of public health and safety. Judge Stickman expressly rejected such a standard, holding that the ongoing nature and indefinite length of Gov. Wolf’s orders warranted the use of “ordinary canons” of Constitutional interpretation. In so doing, he did not address last month’s decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, in which the Supreme Court upheld California’s attendance limits at religious services under a deferential standard. Instead, Judge Stickman relied on a dissenting opinion opposing the majority’s use of a deferential standard in another recent Supreme Court decision upholding similar attendance limits imposed by the Governor of Nevada.

    **Across the country, state and local governments have responded to the coronavirus by limiting in various ways normal activities that were part of everyday life before the outbreak. A battery of lawsuits in state and federal courts have challenged these limits on constitutional grounds.

    The United States Supreme Court weighed in on one such limit last week, denying by a 5-4 vote a San Diego church’s emergency application to enjoin enforcement of California’s reopening plan. See South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The plan authorized places of worship to reopen in San Diego County, but imposed a 25% occupancy cap and a maximum of 100 attendees. The church claimed that the plan violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

    Writing for a five-justice majority (including Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor), Chief Justice Roberts explicitly recognized the states’ broad authority to respond to the coronavirus: “Our Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard and protect. When those officials undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad.”

    ***In Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Governor Tom Wolf’s executive order closing non-life sustaining businesses. Had the court stricken the order, businesses across the Commonwealth would have been free to re-open in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In finding the order valid and not subject to appeal, the court settled the challenge as a matter of Pennsylvania law.

    The court, in an opinion written by Justice Christine Donohue, invoked its rarely used King’s Bench jurisdiction to provide clarity concerning the Governor’s order, observing that the case “presents issues of immediate and immense public importance impacting virtually all Pennsylvanians and thousands of Pennsylvania businesses.” The plaintiffs had argued that “because the Executive Order prohibits them from using their property ‘at all,’ it resulted in a taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitutio

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @mark tapley
    @Corvinus

    The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights. Judges are not the only ones who can interpret the law and it is self evident that among these rights are to be left alone, to be secure in our personal effects including our property and businesses and that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon.

    Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry, even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified. The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see. The fake virus with it's fake test and fake CDC numbers was laid out years ago but implemented by the globalist clique along with the staged rioting as a cover for another massive theft of trillions more by their banking cartel as was done in 08-09.

    We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights. Breyer always votes with the radical Jews Ginsberg, Kagan and the Puerto Rican Jew Sotomayor. As for Roberts he was brought in originally to legalize the fraudulent Obama Care tax for the super rich controlled HMO's and drag us further down the socialist road.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Corvinus

  27. @macilrae
    My understanding of this movement is that you believe that COVID19 is part of a conspiracy to control the masses - pretty much an international conspiracy at that - the statistics are all false.

    That this virus is no worse that a bad case of seasonal flu and that the numbers of deaths have been grossly exaggerated as part of the conspiracy and that the mortality associated with COVID19 is also in line with that of flu.

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line - the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission - but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.

    I personally don't have special knowledge in this matter and I have only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) but I would point out that:

    (1) It's clear that, unlike flu, there's no communal immunity to COVID19
    (2) The virus is pretty contagious
    (3) The virus has a significant mortality and can engender chronic morbidities
    (4) All the medical professionals I know are using face-masks and, presumably and collectively, they have more insight than I do - or than Ms Malkin does.

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    I note that social responsibility reaches high levels in Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong-Kong and Japan where masks are worn just about universally and where COVID19 has had considerably less impact even though all are in China's back-yard.

    I also note that social responsibility reaches a low point in the USA and UK - allegedly among the worst afflicted countries.

    I personally believe this is a truly nasty bug and I dread the possibility of getting sick enough to need intensive care. I wear a mask on all occasions required or when I feel it's necessary.

    And, even if I didn't believe in wearing masks I'd still do it because otherwise I will upset others and, who knows? I could be wrong.

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government's handling of this crisis - or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don't believe in face masks seems to me petty - and stupid!

    So BAAAA! To you.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @mark tapley, @Ivan K.

    Assuming we really did have a virus rather than just another in a long line of medical psyops. here is how effective the face diapers are:


    • Replies: @macilrae
    @mark tapley


    here is how effective the face diapers are:
     
    A more realistic test would show the result when saliva droplets are expelled during coughing - here a similar demo is dramatic in showing the difference when a mask is worn. Also, and obviously, if the mask used is of a type where there is as exhalation valve (as in his last demo), this will only protect the wearer!

    The problem with being a doctor of 36 years' experience is that your patients look upon you as being all-knowing and, in that length of time, there's a danger you'll come to believe it too.

    Anyhow - I sense there is much more to this controversy than whether the masks work or not.

    Replies: @mark tapley

  28. @Adam Smith
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Good afternoon Mr. Newman...

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    I have no problem with any recommendations or suggestions they would like to make, but this brazen totalitarian nonsense is as criminal as it is repulsive. Some powerful people need to be held accountable for the destruction they have wantonly caused. I do not think this is merely incompetence or stupidity. If Coronafest was caused by ineptitude alone it would not have been the global obedience training phenomenon that we have witnessed. The response was too fast and too uniform across the globe. It fit the agenda they have been writing about for years.

    This is a global crime of epic proportions.
    Some people even had foreknowledge of the event...

    Regarding the Science! of all things Coronafest it has become abundantly clear to me that what we are dealing with is massive criminal fraud on many levels. From the obviously fraudulent models and predictions from Neil Ferguson and the Imperial College of London to the fraudulent testing, case and death counts, the hypnotic hysteria inducing fakenews, to goosing the numbers with economic incentives for CovidCases! and respirator use, the inconsistent nonsensical edicts from bureaucrats with conflicting interests, etc... It's wildly surreal.

    Fraud everywhere at all levels.
    It's been a totalitarian wet dream.

    Just look at Victoria for example...
    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?
    Is that what happens when a people are disarmed?

    How did the cops and "government" get so drunk on their CovidPower so quickly?

    Is Victoria a testing ground for an agenda they would like to implement globally?

    I am deeply disappointed and concerned with the authoritarian insanity that has arisen in the last six months. Seeing people being assaulted and caged by armed "government" workers for not wearing a face diaper is discouraging. Learning how many people are not only willing but eager to call snitch lines on people for failure to obey silly commandments is inauspicious though unfortunately not surprising. If the powerful, dangerous, criminal psychopaths who released Coronafest upon the world are not dealt with accordingly I shudder to think about what they will unleash next.

    I am proud of people like Mrs. Malkin and the Bandimere's for doing their part to educate and mobilize people to help put an end to this hysterical nonsense. I'm proud of people like Eric Peters and the dedicated staff at PeakStupidity for being voices of reason and sanity in a world gone mad. I remain optimistic that we can still turn this thing around before it's too late. This is an opportunity to institute some badly needed positive change. I hope the world will rise to the occasion.

    I hope you and the Newman family have a great day.

    Replies: @Kratoklastes

    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?

    Business as usual, as far as government metastasis is concerned. (FWIW: I’m in Victoria).

    This whole power-grab is what people simply refuse to understand about the ‘political means’: the dynamic consequences.

    Over time, governments will expand their power, because of the types of people attracted to political life (i.e., megalomanaical sociopaths); this dynamic will be almost impossible to stop because of the immense cost of obtaining redress and the institutional hurdles involved.

    If people go through the approved channels to challenge government creep, they will wind up dead (from old age or COVID) or broke before there is any final resolution.

    The judge mentioned in the article is a Federal judge, but he’s only in a District court: if the state politicians wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the reversal, they would appeal it all the way to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS would side with the governor. The BlackRobes are power’s lickspittle: they are selected by politicians after a lifetime of proving that they are ‘safe hands’.

    .

    Similarly, when Clive Palmer challenged the constitutionality of the Western Australia border closure, the preliminary Federal Court dickhead (Darryl Rangia) thought that the fact(sic) that border closures might be effective was relevant.

    The effectiveness of the border closures is absolutely not relevant: the issue is whether the Western Australian government has a valid constitutional ground on which to pass legislation that closes the fucking border. Border closures prima facie violate s92 of the Australian Constitution.

    Little wonder it took Rangiah 17 years to get silk – in Queensland.

    He did law at QUT – a glorified TAFE – 5 years after he failed to get an Honours degree (in Economics) from ANU.

    So he’s not numerate enough to understand statistical arguments as to whether or not a border closure has any obectively-verifiable merit as a tool against a moderately-harmful virus that very rarely causes a respiratory illness that can be lethal to very old people and chronically-ill people. (99.7% of all people who contract coronavirus, suffer no long-term harm – and at the moment we are in a ‘casedemic’… fuck-all people are dying or have died: Australia will lose about a normal years’ worth of deaths from Influenza-Like Illnesses, including COVID19).

    Being objectively second-rate doesn’t matter once you get picked by the political class – you get to wear the silly costume, so all your inadequacy is washed away.

    This is why Australia needs a Federal Judicial Commission and a Federal Corruption Commission – even though such things end up full of ‘safe hands’ political apparatchiks: otherwise, it will become clear to people faced with manifest judicial/political bias/corruption, that they would be best served to take matters into their own hands.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Kratoklastes


    Over time, governments will expand their power, because of the types of people attracted to political life (i.e., megalomanaical sociopaths)
     
    This is the root of the problem. The real problem that we all should be fighting against. It is a problem that cannot be fought from within the system. Chopping at the leaves and branches will not destroy the root. I only see two solutions to the problem...

    Capitulation is not one of them.

  29. @Adam Smith
    @Sink

    The gold fringe flag is indeed emblematic of an admiralty or maritime court. Because of the commerce clause and the adhesion contracts that most people have entered into unknowingly, unwillingly and involuntarily most people do not have access to a court of law. You will have to challenge the validity of those unconscionable contracts.

    I am no expert, but I am under the impression that if you want to gain access to a court of law you have to challenge jurisdiction every step of the way. Motion for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Do not enter a plea as that is acquiescing to the jurisdiction of the court. Instead you would demur. You will have to appear before the court by "special appearance". You cannot hire an attorney to do this for you. An attorney is an officer of the court. By hiring an attorney to "represent you" you not only become "subject to the jurisdiction of the court" but you are in essence saying that you are a child or someone of unsound mind, incapable of handling you own legal affairs.

    If you are to challenge the jurisdiction of the "court" you will have to do so in your own proper person (in propria persona). Someone else cannot challenge jurisdiction for you. If you do not challenge jurisdiction early on you cannot bring it up on appeal.

    Remember, you are not "representing yourself", you are yourself.
    (Sometimes there are ways to win in court as a pro se litigant. Sometimes not.)

    If you have committed a real crime there will be an injured party. A corpus delicti.
    No injured party, no crime.

    Most "courts" are not judicial courts. They are administrative tribunals.
    They are part of the executive branch.

    Ask the person in the black robed costume...

    "Is this a judicial proceeding?"
    "Is this an administrative proceeding?"

    It cannot be both because of the separation of powers doctrine.

    Remember you have a right to a judicial proceeding.
    Be nice but firm.
    "I demand a judicial proceeding."

    You will have to be wise as a serpent and meek as a lamb.

    Keep in mind it is hard to get a "fair trial" in a kangaroo court.
    America is no longer a nation of laws.
    She is a kakistocracy now.

    Good Luck!

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    I agree that it is a systematically corrupt, unfair, anti-liberty, and now anti-white government, and that definitely includes the judicial system.

    But there are some errors in the statements above. First, there is personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. If you fail to assert lack of personal jurisdiction early on, you can be found to have waived the argument. But a lack of SUBJECT-MATTER jurisdiction need not ever be raised by a party.

    Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect. The trial court always has the duty to ascertain its own subject-matter jurisdiction and dismiss the action if it is lacking. If the trial court fails to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction or simply erroneously concludes that it has such jurisdiction, then the losing party certainly may raise the lack of SMJ before the appellate court.

    Next, hiring an attorney has no effect whatsoever on the analysis of either personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. It is bad advice to urge people to refrain from hiring a lawyer on the mistaken premise that it would deprive the party of the right to contest jurisdiction.

    And no, Article III federal courts are not administrative tribunals. They are judicial courts. They’re full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature. Either way, they need to thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.

    While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.

    To add insult to injury, these scumbag judges are paid their full final salary as a pension for the rest of their lives — something that those of us paying their salaries can only dream of,

    Some of my best friends are ex-attorneys 😉

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @RadicalCenter

    Good morning RadicalCenter,

    Thank you for your excellent, helpful comment and for correcting my errors and omissions.

    It is my understanding that failure to assert a lack of in personam jurisdiction early on is tacit assent to the jurisdiction of the court and unappealable while subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and is appealable.

    I also agree with you that Article III courts are indeed judicial courts that are “full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature.” Article III courts are not administrative, they are judicial.

    I agree wholeheartedly with you that the courts should be “thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.” These are great ideas.

    “While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.” ← Agree! Agree! Agree! x1000! Agree! Only "natural born citizens" unencumbered by foreign allegiance should be qualified to hold any office. No exceptions!

    However, I disagree with you about hiring an attorney, not strictly, but in certain situations. It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that an attorney cannot assert any of your rights on your behalf. Only you can do that.

    Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7, section 4, informs the reader that an attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public; not the client:

    §4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

    Here is another interesting passage you will find in Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7...

    §§ 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim of defending against a suit in a court of justice, one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for this fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit, one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/propria-persona/
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Propria+persona
    https://www.lectlaw.com/def/i082.htm

    PROPRIA PERSONA

    In his own person. It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propria persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction.

    Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition) defines Pro Se as follows:

    Pro Se: one proceeding for himself and on their own behalf, in person.

    In review of the origins and meanings of words, etymologically, Pro Se means to proceed, and while one is proceeding they are pro-se-cuting, or proceeding with prosecution. You may be the one prosecuting, particularly if you are suing, thus you are proceeding, and are "Pro Se". However, in Colorable Courts, who do not have jurisdiction, you would not want to proceed (Pro Se), as that very word, states your willingness to proceed under the Jurisdiction of that court.

    Although U.S. vs. JOHNSON only addresses the privilege right to not self incriminate, I believe this is applicable to the claim of any right(s).

    "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538)

    Thus the adage that “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”.

    I'm not saying that there is never a situation where it can be advantageous to proceed pro se, I just saying that if you want to claim your rights you have to do it pro per and no one else can do it for you. I could be wrong, but this is my current understanding.

    Thanks again for your excellent, thoughtful and informative comment.

    I hope you have a great day.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

  30. @macilrae
    My understanding of this movement is that you believe that COVID19 is part of a conspiracy to control the masses - pretty much an international conspiracy at that - the statistics are all false.

    That this virus is no worse that a bad case of seasonal flu and that the numbers of deaths have been grossly exaggerated as part of the conspiracy and that the mortality associated with COVID19 is also in line with that of flu.

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line - the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission - but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.

    I personally don't have special knowledge in this matter and I have only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) but I would point out that:

    (1) It's clear that, unlike flu, there's no communal immunity to COVID19
    (2) The virus is pretty contagious
    (3) The virus has a significant mortality and can engender chronic morbidities
    (4) All the medical professionals I know are using face-masks and, presumably and collectively, they have more insight than I do - or than Ms Malkin does.

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    I note that social responsibility reaches high levels in Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong-Kong and Japan where masks are worn just about universally and where COVID19 has had considerably less impact even though all are in China's back-yard.

    I also note that social responsibility reaches a low point in the USA and UK - allegedly among the worst afflicted countries.

    I personally believe this is a truly nasty bug and I dread the possibility of getting sick enough to need intensive care. I wear a mask on all occasions required or when I feel it's necessary.

    And, even if I didn't believe in wearing masks I'd still do it because otherwise I will upset others and, who knows? I could be wrong.

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government's handling of this crisis - or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don't believe in face masks seems to me petty - and stupid!

    So BAAAA! To you.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @mark tapley, @Ivan K.

    Hi, Micilrae,

    You say you only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) .

    The virus, has apparently not been isolated:
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation
    (https://i.ibb.co/WW42tdj/cdc-virus-0.jpg)
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Rooster+in+the+River+of+Rats

    So, it’s hard to be sure that somebody has caught “the” virus, or instead caught another germ, or instead suffered from a collapse of the immune system, etc.

    You also say that all the medical professionals you know are using face-masks. It reminds me, I was shocked to learn that there are surgeons that do not use facemasks in the surgical theater. They, alongside their more cautious colleagues, have been a part of a series of studies over a 45 year long period to determine the effectiveness of surgical masks when used professionally. http://12160.info/m/blogpost?id=2649739:BlogPost:2035264 As you can make sure for yourself, every single one of the nearly twenty major studies failed to find evidence that it happens, i.e. that masks protect even under the ideal conditions for that.

    Very strange … even for a skeptic.

    And, you emphasize:

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    Yes! I’ve been saying that for months! How can you explain that?

    I’ve looked into it, and found clues here:

    (https://i.ibb.co/pJ8mcqN/Meyssan-Thierry-on-the-current-crisis-origins-16-May-2020.jpg)

    and here

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/jon-rappoport/the-pandemic-pattern-how-the-illusion-is-built/

    And finally, this book here

    (https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679)

    Incidentally, it provides a theory that accounts for the failure of all those facemask studies.

    But, before I learned all of that, I already thought it’s a hoax. Because, the societal order (as it was in January) could not be sustained. The financial system – most of us know… Pharma: its total liabilities are $140 trillion. And, lastly, there has never been a transition from a dominance of one global power, like the US, to another, like China, without a … war between them …for which you need militarisation.

    Sorry for the length of the post, it may appear more patronising than it was meant to be.
    With best wishes

    • Replies: @macilrae
    @Ivan K.

    It's a point of view. I personally believe that the virus which has been named Sars-CoV-2, and for which a genome has been published exhaustively by multiple research groups, is the source of the disease known as COVID-19 which is alleged to have caused almost a million excess deaths in the world to date. (I think the 1919 flu epidemic resulted in 5 million deaths)

    If, indeed this is an international conspiracy this cannot remain hidden forever but, meantime, I stand with the "sheep" who believe what they are told and take the recommended actions. I value my life and those of my family too much to do otherwise.

    It is true you can always point to somebody who doesn't follow a trend and say "Look, he/she didn't obey the rules and, see? Nothing happened!" In the case of your surgeons who don't wear masks, I'd say this is ostentation on their part - the risk of harmful bacteria from their saliva falling into a wound is self-evidently higher.

    On masks, I won't repeat the numbers (see my reply to Achmed E. Newman) comparing the per capita deaths of mask-wearing cultures in Asia with their Western counterparts but if a person with an obvious chest infection coughs in my face, I'd prefer that both of us had masks on.

  31. anonymous[771] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    @macilrae


    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis...
     
    That's what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that's what she just got done writing about in this very column!

    You sound like Ron Unz, making up a completely erroneous theory of what we "hoaxers" (Ron Unz terminology) are pissed off about. I don't care where the freakin' virus came from - I've seen 'em come and go before and know that this is no Black Plague, 2.0, because I have some perspective.

    I don't think the Infotainment Panic-fest response was a conspiracy either, personally, though I wouldn't rule it out. Usually, it's just a lot of the same stupid and/or evil people in the Lyin' Press and governments who are on the same page.


    ... – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.
     
    One protest at a time... How 'bout you get off your ass about that one? Scared the Black Plague 2.0 will gitcha?

    Replies: @anonymous, @macilrae

    Potty shout all you want, but a columnist’s background and perspective are fair game. Isn’t that why you often tell us what you’ve had to say at your website?

    Mrs. Malkin is an unrepentant Neocon. She helped to monger the wars begun during the Cheney Administration, praising people like John Bolton.

    She’s since moved to Megachurch, Colorado, and rebranded as an anti-Invite the World, family values type. Never even typing “Bolton” during his last White House gig, she now pushes reader buttons about Big Gov in contexts like this column. But she remains Exceptional! and has never renounced her support for Invading the World.

    A few months ago, when the Dempanic hit, provenance of the virus(es) was a hot topic. Mrs. Malkin chose to be a Chinadidit! smear artist in her first couple columns here at Unz Review. (Weren’t you on that bandwagon, too?) She (and her fans) have since ignored repeated requests to tell the readership what Uncle Sam should be doing in and about China, Gaza, Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

    And when it comes to government overreaction to a virus, what has she had to say about the 96-0 Senate vote to bail out Wall Street in the CARES Act?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @anonymous

    Mr. #771, there's not really much I disagree with as far as your own politics go. However, Mr. Macilrae up top either didn't read the column at all has a real misunderstanding about what governments are for. I figured he didn't read the column at all. There he is, telling us what's OK about the Kung Flu, what we should be worried about, and his experience with it. That's fine. Did you read this part of his comment:


    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don’t believe in face masks seems to me petty – and stupid!
     

    That's what Mrs. Malkin's whole column was all about, taking a stand in various ways (legal action and protests). His flaunting comment is in direct contradiction of his own comment, in which he wrote:

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line – the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission – but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.
     
    What do you want, Mr. Macilrae? We can be sheep and wear them or petty and stupid, is that the choice? Think some more. How about not being sheep and taking a stand? Michelle Malkin is doing yeowoman's work on this.

    For Mr. #771 here, as far as your criticisms of the writer, sure, she is fair game. I believe I recall some Neoconnity out of Mrs. Malkin, but it's not something I've read in her unz columns (maybe under 5 months worth of 'em on here) and really not in a long time on VDare either. I keep seeing commenters with questions about Venezuala and what have you. Just wait until Mrs. Malkin writes about it - then she is fair game. Why not respond to the article in question, unless one it is just part of an ad hominem attack.

    As far as "China did it", I read some of that. I'm not in complete agreement, because I don't know the facts. However, I think Mrs. Malkin would agree with me that what's been important over the last 6 months was not "who dunnit?", but why is this mildly bad flu season being used to shut the economy down and get everyone used to Totalitarianism (more than we've had so far, that is).


    And when it comes to government overreaction to a virus, what has she had to say about the 96-0 Senate vote to bail out Wall Street in the CARES Act?
     
    I don't know. I think she'd be against it just as much as 95% of the country is, when they ever hear about it, but she hasn't written about it yet. Wait till then, OK?
  32. @Corvinus
    "U.S. District Judge William Stickman determined that the sweeping measures violated “the right of assembly enshrined in the First Amendment.”

    Per usual, Michelle is not offering the proper context, as the judge was employing his own legal standard separate from other well-established cases.


    On Monday, September 14, U.S. District Court Judge William S. Stickman IV became the first federal or state judge in Pennsylvania to strike down Governor Tom Wolf’s emergency orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following briefing and an evidentiary hearing, Judge Stickman held that the orders restricting the size of gatherings, ordering Pennsylvania residents to stay at home, and closing businesses deemed non-life-sustaining all violate the U.S. Constitution. The decision is contrary to rulings by other courts – including the U.S. Supreme Court, other Pennsylvania District Courts, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court – which have upheld similar state restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of the coronavirus. Learn more about those cases here** and here***.

    These prior decisions have utilized a deferential standard of review reflecting the state’s broad police power with respect to the maintenance of public health and safety. Judge Stickman expressly rejected such a standard, holding that the ongoing nature and indefinite length of Gov. Wolf’s orders warranted the use of “ordinary canons” of Constitutional interpretation. In so doing, he did not address last month’s decision in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, in which the Supreme Court upheld California’s attendance limits at religious services under a deferential standard. Instead, Judge Stickman relied on a dissenting opinion opposing the majority’s use of a deferential standard in another recent Supreme Court decision upholding similar attendance limits imposed by the Governor of Nevada.
     
    **Across the country, state and local governments have responded to the coronavirus by limiting in various ways normal activities that were part of everyday life before the outbreak. A battery of lawsuits in state and federal courts have challenged these limits on constitutional grounds.

    The United States Supreme Court weighed in on one such limit last week, denying by a 5-4 vote a San Diego church’s emergency application to enjoin enforcement of California’s reopening plan. See South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom. The plan authorized places of worship to reopen in San Diego County, but imposed a 25% occupancy cap and a maximum of 100 attendees. The church claimed that the plan violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

    Writing for a five-justice majority (including Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor), Chief Justice Roberts explicitly recognized the states’ broad authority to respond to the coronavirus: “Our Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard and protect. When those officials undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad.”

    ***In Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Governor Tom Wolf’s executive order closing non-life sustaining businesses. Had the court stricken the order, businesses across the Commonwealth would have been free to re-open in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. In finding the order valid and not subject to appeal, the court settled the challenge as a matter of Pennsylvania law.

    The court, in an opinion written by Justice Christine Donohue, invoked its rarely used King’s Bench jurisdiction to provide clarity concerning the Governor’s order, observing that the case “presents issues of immediate and immense public importance impacting virtually all Pennsylvanians and thousands of Pennsylvania businesses.” The plaintiffs had argued that “because the Executive Order prohibits them from using their property ‘at all,’ it resulted in a taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitutio

    Replies: @mark tapley

    The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights. Judges are not the only ones who can interpret the law and it is self evident that among these rights are to be left alone, to be secure in our personal effects including our property and businesses and that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon.

    Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry, even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified. The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see. The fake virus with it’s fake test and fake CDC numbers was laid out years ago but implemented by the globalist clique along with the staged rioting as a cover for another massive theft of trillions more by their banking cartel as was done in 08-09.

    We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights. Breyer always votes with the radical Jews Ginsberg, Kagan and the Puerto Rican Jew Sotomayor. As for Roberts he was brought in originally to legalize the fraudulent Obama Care tax for the super rich controlled HMO’s and drag us further down the socialist road.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @mark tapley

    Wonderful comment.

    I would just note that while I am no socialist, the obamacare system is more fascist than socialist. Forcing people to buy a product or service from a private for-profit corporation is not socialism.

    And yes, “justice” John Roberts is a disgrace and an enabler of oppression. It is past time for Congress to strip the US Supreme Court of all jurisdiction not expressly conferred by the Constitution, to cabin the “high court’s interference and limit the damage that those pompous jackasses can do.

    As for the lower federal courts — US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals (“circuit courts) — the Constitution does not even require the creation of such courts. Congress has the constitutional authority to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction in any way it chooses, and it should do so.

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @Corvinus
    @mark tapley

    "The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights."

    Corrected For Accuracy --> The court system as the third branch of government has been used to protect Constitutionally-protected freedoms.

    "that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon".

    We the People, to Promote the General Welfare, have enabled our representatives to pass laws that protects our health. That is exactly what was done with the gathering restrictions.

    "Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry,

    Sometimes, assuredly. Always? No.

    "even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified."

    The reality is that Covid-19 is real. YOU want to believe otherwise.

    "The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see".

    Praytell, are Jews in your closet, under your bed, or both?

    "We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights."

    Indeed, this statement affirms you have been duped.

    Replies: @Sya Beerens

  33. @Achmed E. Newman
    @macilrae


    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis...
     
    That's what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that's what she just got done writing about in this very column!

    You sound like Ron Unz, making up a completely erroneous theory of what we "hoaxers" (Ron Unz terminology) are pissed off about. I don't care where the freakin' virus came from - I've seen 'em come and go before and know that this is no Black Plague, 2.0, because I have some perspective.

    I don't think the Infotainment Panic-fest response was a conspiracy either, personally, though I wouldn't rule it out. Usually, it's just a lot of the same stupid and/or evil people in the Lyin' Press and governments who are on the same page.


    ... – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.
     
    One protest at a time... How 'bout you get off your ass about that one? Scared the Black Plague 2.0 will gitcha?

    Replies: @anonymous, @macilrae

    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!

    She’s writing to say that mask-wearing is “unconstitutional”, futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity – and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not – a huge factor is also the “freedoms” in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences – and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people – and it you’re not, you could be infecting them. True, you’ll get a lot of attention if that’s what you need.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @macilrae

    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their medical ignorance and irrational paranoia. We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.

    We’re scaring YOU? You’re scaring US, brother. The hysterical sheeple are acquiescing in disproportionate draconian measures that are wrecking our livelihoods, preventing our children from having a normal healthy childhood, destroying normal human interaction and friendliness, causing poverty and despair in tens of millions of people who were at no serious risk whatsoever of dying from this virus, and rapidly helping to finish building a police state that will be very difficult to dislodge without much further suffering and violence. Yeah, we scare YOU.

    Try to think straight and calmly evaluate the evidence — and that has to include an assessment of the systematic fabrication and exaggeration of the virus’s severity and lethality. Fabrication and exaggeration by government and corporate powers who greatly benefit and profit from the hysteria and the lockdowns.

    What we want is not “attention”, but to be left alone to live (somewhat) freely as we were before he plandemic. We do not need attention from uniformed thugs or the easily frightened sheeple who submit to them and empower them to monitor and control us like cattle (or prisoners).

    Replies: @macilrae, @Chaco Cortes

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @macilrae

    Your numbers are deaths WITH the COVID-one-niner, Mr. Macilrae. Who knows by how much they differ from deaths solely FROM the COVID-one-niner, though we have an idea that we're talking a factor of 10? Does this logging of deaths vary from country to country? There are lots of incentives in America, financial and political, to lean toward the "yep, next patient please, just another victim of Corona-vi disease."*

    As far as you last sentence, actually, the only attention we need is from the Governors and other control freaks, so they will understand "you can't legally force this face-diapering on us.". That's all. 30 years ago, if you'd told me that the future of this country was one that resembled being governed being hysterical women, I wouldn't have believed you. "Nope."

    .

    * My apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits.


    OK, now both videos have to go up, in reverse order. Sorry, Michelle, this is just what I gotta do occasionally.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3X3rKtruSg

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    , @Adam Smith
    @macilrae


    even if you are right, you are scaring people
     
    I propose a new rule...

    Sane people must do whatever insane people want us to do so we don't scare them.

    , @Piglet
    @macilrae

    Is mask wearing the only variable between these countries?

    Replies: @macilrae

  34. @Ivan K.
    @macilrae

    Hi, Micilrae,

    You say you only had one family-member who caught the virus (a middle-aged diabetic who has apparently fully recovered) .

    The virus, has apparently not been isolated:
    https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation
    (https://i.ibb.co/WW42tdj/cdc-virus-0.jpg)
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Rooster+in+the+River+of+Rats

    So, it's hard to be sure that somebody has caught "the" virus, or instead caught another germ, or instead suffered from a collapse of the immune system, etc.

    You also say that all the medical professionals you know are using face-masks. It reminds me, I was shocked to learn that there are surgeons that do not use facemasks in the surgical theater. They, alongside their more cautious colleagues, have been a part of a series of studies over a 45 year long period to determine the effectiveness of surgical masks when used professionally. http://12160.info/m/blogpost?id=2649739:BlogPost:2035264 As you can make sure for yourself, every single one of the nearly twenty major studies failed to find evidence that it happens, i.e. that masks protect even under the ideal conditions for that.

    Very strange ... even for a skeptic.

    And, you emphasize:

    I cannot believe that countries as diverse as UK, India, Canada, China, Brazil, Iran and Russia would all join in the same conspiracy. Iran, for God sake!

    Yes! I've been saying that for months! How can you explain that?

    I've looked into it, and found clues here:

    (https://i.ibb.co/pJ8mcqN/Meyssan-Thierry-on-the-current-crisis-origins-16-May-2020.jpg)

    and here

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/jon-rappoport/the-pandemic-pattern-how-the-illusion-is-built/

    And finally, this book here

    (https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-Continually-Epidemics-Billion-Dollar/dp/1425114679)

    Incidentally, it provides a theory that accounts for the failure of all those facemask studies.

    But, before I learned all of that, I already thought it's a hoax. Because, the societal order (as it was in January) could not be sustained. The financial system - most of us know... Pharma: its total liabilities are $140 trillion. And, lastly, there has never been a transition from a dominance of one global power, like the US, to another, like China, without a ... war between them ...for which you need militarisation.

    Sorry for the length of the post, it may appear more patronising than it was meant to be.
    With best wishes

    Replies: @macilrae

    It’s a point of view. I personally believe that the virus which has been named Sars-CoV-2, and for which a genome has been published exhaustively by multiple research groups, is the source of the disease known as COVID-19 which is alleged to have caused almost a million excess deaths in the world to date. (I think the 1919 flu epidemic resulted in 5 million deaths)

    If, indeed this is an international conspiracy this cannot remain hidden forever but, meantime, I stand with the “sheep” who believe what they are told and take the recommended actions. I value my life and those of my family too much to do otherwise.

    It is true you can always point to somebody who doesn’t follow a trend and say “Look, he/she didn’t obey the rules and, see? Nothing happened!” In the case of your surgeons who don’t wear masks, I’d say this is ostentation on their part – the risk of harmful bacteria from their saliva falling into a wound is self-evidently higher.

    On masks, I won’t repeat the numbers (see my reply to Achmed E. Newman) comparing the per capita deaths of mask-wearing cultures in Asia with their Western counterparts but if a person with an obvious chest infection coughs in my face, I’d prefer that both of us had masks on.

  35. @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    Assuming we really did have a virus rather than just another in a long line of medical psyops. here is how effective the face diapers are:


    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrZ6AWG9vrXN/

    Replies: @macilrae

    here is how effective the face diapers are:

    A more realistic test would show the result when saliva droplets are expelled during coughing – here a similar demo is dramatic in showing the difference when a mask is worn. Also, and obviously, if the mask used is of a type where there is as exhalation valve (as in his last demo), this will only protect the wearer!

    The problem with being a doctor of 36 years’ experience is that your patients look upon you as being all-knowing and, in that length of time, there’s a danger you’ll come to believe it too.

    Anyhow – I sense there is much more to this controversy than whether the masks work or not.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    Read my post #7. Rappaport lays out how they coordinate all these fake virus scams including the AIDS "epidemic". One of the subsidiaries of the criminal CDC has done extensive testing on masks in the manner you suggest. I had the study saved but cannot find it. Dr. Noel that exposed Hillary's Parkinsons did a mask test- here it is:

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrZ6AWG9vrXN/

    Replies: @macilrae

  36. @RadicalCenter
    @Adam Smith

    I agree that it is a systematically corrupt, unfair, anti-liberty, and now anti-white government, and that definitely includes the judicial system.

    But there are some errors in the statements above. First, there is personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. If you fail to assert lack of personal jurisdiction early on, you can be found to have waived the argument. But a lack of SUBJECT-MATTER jurisdiction need not ever be raised by a party.

    Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect. The trial court always has the duty to ascertain its own subject-matter jurisdiction and dismiss the action if it is lacking. If the trial court fails to analyze subject-matter jurisdiction or simply erroneously concludes that it has such jurisdiction, then the losing party certainly may raise the lack of SMJ before the appellate court.

    Next, hiring an attorney has no effect whatsoever on the analysis of either personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. It is bad advice to urge people to refrain from hiring a lawyer on the mistaken premise that it would deprive the party of the right to contest jurisdiction.

    And no, Article III federal courts are not administrative tribunals. They are judicial courts. They’re full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature. Either way, they need to thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.

    While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.

    To add insult to injury, these scumbag judges are paid their full final salary as a pension for the rest of their lives — something that those of us paying their salaries can only dream of,

    Some of my best friends are ex-attorneys ;)

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    Good morning RadicalCenter,

    Thank you for your excellent, helpful comment and for correcting my errors and omissions.

    It is my understanding that failure to assert a lack of in personam jurisdiction early on is tacit assent to the jurisdiction of the court and unappealable while subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and is appealable.

    I also agree with you that Article III courts are indeed judicial courts that are “full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature.” Article III courts are not administrative, they are judicial.

    I agree wholeheartedly with you that the courts should be “thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.” These are great ideas.

    “While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.” ← Agree! Agree! Agree! x1000! Agree! Only “natural born citizens” unencumbered by foreign allegiance should be qualified to hold any office. No exceptions!

    However, I disagree with you about hiring an attorney, not strictly, but in certain situations. It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that an attorney cannot assert any of your rights on your behalf. Only you can do that.

    Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7, section 4, informs the reader that an attorney’s first duty is to the courts and the public; not the client:

    §4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

    Here is another interesting passage you will find in Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7…

    §§ 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim of defending against a suit in a court of justice, one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for this fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit, one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called “wards of the court” in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/propria-persona/
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Propria+persona
    https://www.lectlaw.com/def/i082.htm

    PROPRIA PERSONA

    In his own person. It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propria persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction.

    Black’s Law Dictionary (4th edition) defines Pro Se as follows:

    Pro Se: one proceeding for himself and on their own behalf, in person.

    In review of the origins and meanings of words, etymologically, Pro Se means to proceed, and while one is proceeding they are pro-se-cuting, or proceeding with prosecution. You may be the one prosecuting, particularly if you are suing, thus you are proceeding, and are “Pro Se”. However, in Colorable Courts, who do not have jurisdiction, you would not want to proceed (Pro Se), as that very word, states your willingness to proceed under the Jurisdiction of that court.

    Although U.S. vs. JOHNSON only addresses the privilege right to not self incriminate, I believe this is applicable to the claim of any right(s).

    “The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.” U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538)

    Thus the adage that “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”.

    I’m not saying that there is never a situation where it can be advantageous to proceed pro se, I just saying that if you want to claim your rights you have to do it pro per and no one else can do it for you. I could be wrong, but this is my current understanding.

    Thanks again for your excellent, thoughtful and informative comment.

    I hope you have a great day.

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Adam Smith

    PS The CJS can be a useful source but it is not binding, and it appears to be cited a lot less than it used to be.

    More broadly, federal courts attribute no significance to a declaration that a party is proceeding “in propria persona” rather than “pro se.” It has no effect and confers no benefit for a party to insist that he is proceeding in propria persona rather than “pro se.”

    It is also uniformly useless for a party to assert that the US is a corporation and that the party is not subject to its jurisdiction or some such argument. Right or wrong, it gets you nowhere and merely irritates some of the judges and their advisors.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  37. @anonymous
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Potty shout all you want, but a columnist’s background and perspective are fair game. Isn’t that why you often tell us what you’ve had to say at your website?

    Mrs. Malkin is an unrepentant Neocon. She helped to monger the wars begun during the Cheney Administration, praising people like John Bolton.

    She’s since moved to Megachurch, Colorado, and rebranded as an anti-Invite the World, family values type. Never even typing “Bolton” during his last White House gig, she now pushes reader buttons about Big Gov in contexts like this column. But she remains Exceptional! and has never renounced her support for Invading the World.

    A few months ago, when the Dempanic hit, provenance of the virus(es) was a hot topic. Mrs. Malkin chose to be a Chinadidit! smear artist in her first couple columns here at Unz Review. (Weren’t you on that bandwagon, too?) She (and her fans) have since ignored repeated requests to tell the readership what Uncle Sam should be doing in and about China, Gaza, Iran, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.

    And when it comes to government overreaction to a virus, what has she had to say about the 96-0 Senate vote to bail out Wall Street in the CARES Act?

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Mr. #771, there’s not really much I disagree with as far as your own politics go. However, Mr. Macilrae up top either didn’t read the column at all has a real misunderstanding about what governments are for. I figured he didn’t read the column at all. There he is, telling us what’s OK about the Kung Flu, what we should be worried about, and his experience with it. That’s fine. Did you read this part of his comment:

    If you want to take a stand one something, go out and protest the government’s handling of this crisis – or, if you like, the state of western foreign policy.

    Flaunting the fact that you don’t believe in face masks seems to me petty – and stupid!

    That’s what Mrs. Malkin’s whole column was all about, taking a stand in various ways (legal action and protests). His flaunting comment is in direct contradiction of his own comment, in which he wrote:

    Furthermore, the call for using face masks is just a ploy to bring people into line – the mask symbolizing compliance and being of little or no practical value in controlling transmission – but just there to prove you are one of the sheep.

    What do you want, Mr. Macilrae? We can be sheep and wear them or petty and stupid, is that the choice? Think some more. How about not being sheep and taking a stand? Michelle Malkin is doing yeowoman’s work on this.

    For Mr. #771 here, as far as your criticisms of the writer, sure, she is fair game. I believe I recall some Neoconnity out of Mrs. Malkin, but it’s not something I’ve read in her unz columns (maybe under 5 months worth of ’em on here) and really not in a long time on VDare either. I keep seeing commenters with questions about Venezuala and what have you. Just wait until Mrs. Malkin writes about it – then she is fair game. Why not respond to the article in question, unless one it is just part of an ad hominem attack.

    As far as “China did it”, I read some of that. I’m not in complete agreement, because I don’t know the facts. However, I think Mrs. Malkin would agree with me that what’s been important over the last 6 months was not “who dunnit?”, but why is this mildly bad flu season being used to shut the economy down and get everyone used to Totalitarianism (more than we’ve had so far, that is).

    And when it comes to government overreaction to a virus, what has she had to say about the 96-0 Senate vote to bail out Wall Street in the CARES Act?

    I don’t know. I think she’d be against it just as much as 95% of the country is, when they ever hear about it, but she hasn’t written about it yet. Wait till then, OK?

  38. @mark tapley
    @Corvinus

    The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights. Judges are not the only ones who can interpret the law and it is self evident that among these rights are to be left alone, to be secure in our personal effects including our property and businesses and that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon.

    Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry, even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified. The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see. The fake virus with it's fake test and fake CDC numbers was laid out years ago but implemented by the globalist clique along with the staged rioting as a cover for another massive theft of trillions more by their banking cartel as was done in 08-09.

    We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights. Breyer always votes with the radical Jews Ginsberg, Kagan and the Puerto Rican Jew Sotomayor. As for Roberts he was brought in originally to legalize the fraudulent Obama Care tax for the super rich controlled HMO's and drag us further down the socialist road.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Corvinus

    Wonderful comment.

    I would just note that while I am no socialist, the obamacare system is more fascist than socialist. Forcing people to buy a product or service from a private for-profit corporation is not socialism.

    And yes, “justice” John Roberts is a disgrace and an enabler of oppression. It is past time for Congress to strip the US Supreme Court of all jurisdiction not expressly conferred by the Constitution, to cabin the “high court’s interference and limit the damage that those pompous jackasses can do.

    As for the lower federal courts — US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals (“circuit courts) — the Constitution does not even require the creation of such courts. Congress has the constitutional authority to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction in any way it chooses, and it should do so.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @RadicalCenter

    Yes, “past time” is sadly correct.

    Today’s Congress is happy to have ceded its legislative authority on domestic issues to unelected rulers in robes. (And neither of these “branches” wants to play any part in the wars waged without Constitutional authority by the executive.) I wouldn’t be surprised if half its members are unaware of their authority that you have described.

  39. @macilrae
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!
     
    She's writing to say that mask-wearing is "unconstitutional", futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity - and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not - a huge factor is also the "freedoms" in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences - and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people - and it you're not, you could be infecting them. True, you'll get a lot of attention if that's what you need.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @Adam Smith, @Piglet

    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their medical ignorance and irrational paranoia. We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.

    We’re scaring YOU? You’re scaring US, brother. The hysterical sheeple are acquiescing in disproportionate draconian measures that are wrecking our livelihoods, preventing our children from having a normal healthy childhood, destroying normal human interaction and friendliness, causing poverty and despair in tens of millions of people who were at no serious risk whatsoever of dying from this virus, and rapidly helping to finish building a police state that will be very difficult to dislodge without much further suffering and violence. Yeah, we scare YOU.

    Try to think straight and calmly evaluate the evidence — and that has to include an assessment of the systematic fabrication and exaggeration of the virus’s severity and lethality. Fabrication and exaggeration by government and corporate powers who greatly benefit and profit from the hysteria and the lockdowns.

    What we want is not “attention”, but to be left alone to live (somewhat) freely as we were before he plandemic. We do not need attention from uniformed thugs or the easily frightened sheeple who submit to them and empower them to monitor and control us like cattle (or prisoners).

    • Agree: Adam Smith, mark tapley
    • Replies: @macilrae
    @RadicalCenter



    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their . We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.
     
    OK so you have personally determined that the present COVID epidemic (if I may use the word?) is an "overreaction" resulting from "medical ignorance and irrational paranoia". And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country.

    Really, there is nothing to say to either of you other than "time will undoubtedly tell" - you could be right but it will be tough if you are wrong. I'll be following the rule and presumably you won't.

    Meanwhile, however, I'd be interested to see how far you would be willing to go in defense of your principles.

    We do a lot of socially mandated things we'd rather not do - we pay taxes yet we know that our money will be diverted to causes that we abhor and probably 80% of that hard-earned money will be squandered. We go to prison, otherwise. These days we are very careful about where we smoke (in former times, anybody objecting just had to stay out of our damned way) because, it is alleged, we will make others sick. Here, too, "we" wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law - are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?

    And, if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless - or not at all - on principle?

    And, if you needed to visit an elderly relative in a care home where masks were mandated, would you walk in maskless (as Pence did in the Mayo) just to show all the sheep that you aren't stupid, like them?

    Or, if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?

    As I said earlier, even if I didn't believe in masks I'd still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority - I take it as the price of living in society. And I do believe they confer benefit - even though, probably like you, I confess "medical ignorance".

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    , @Chaco Cortes
    @RadicalCenter

    After reading all the comments, I pick this as the most outstanding. 100% agree. Thanks.

  40. @Adam Smith
    @RadicalCenter

    Good morning RadicalCenter,

    Thank you for your excellent, helpful comment and for correcting my errors and omissions.

    It is my understanding that failure to assert a lack of in personam jurisdiction early on is tacit assent to the jurisdiction of the court and unappealable while subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and is appealable.

    I also agree with you that Article III courts are indeed judicial courts that are “full of political hacks who know and/or care little about our constitutional rights or natural rights, but they are judicial in nature.” Article III courts are not administrative, they are judicial.

    I agree wholeheartedly with you that the courts should be “thoroughly cleaned out with mass impeachments of existing federal judges of the “two” parties, an end to life tenure, imposition of a term limit, a mandatory retirement age, and reduction of the convenient “doctrine” of absolute judicial immunity — at a minimum.” These are great ideas.

    “While we are it, nobody born in a foreign country to two noncitizen parents should be allowed to be a fed judge, yet they are and they do. Nor should people holding foreign citizenship be allowed on the fed bench, but they are.” ← Agree! Agree! Agree! x1000! Agree! Only "natural born citizens" unencumbered by foreign allegiance should be qualified to hold any office. No exceptions!

    However, I disagree with you about hiring an attorney, not strictly, but in certain situations. It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that an attorney cannot assert any of your rights on your behalf. Only you can do that.

    Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7, section 4, informs the reader that an attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public; not the client:

    §4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

    Here is another interesting passage you will find in Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 7...

    §§ 2-3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT

    A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim of defending against a suit in a court of justice, one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for this fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit, one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

    https://dictionary.thelaw.com/propria-persona/
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Propria+persona
    https://www.lectlaw.com/def/i082.htm

    PROPRIA PERSONA

    In his own person. It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be pleaded in propria persona, because, if pleaded by attorney, they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction.

    Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition) defines Pro Se as follows:

    Pro Se: one proceeding for himself and on their own behalf, in person.

    In review of the origins and meanings of words, etymologically, Pro Se means to proceed, and while one is proceeding they are pro-se-cuting, or proceeding with prosecution. You may be the one prosecuting, particularly if you are suing, thus you are proceeding, and are "Pro Se". However, in Colorable Courts, who do not have jurisdiction, you would not want to proceed (Pro Se), as that very word, states your willingness to proceed under the Jurisdiction of that court.

    Although U.S. vs. JOHNSON only addresses the privilege right to not self incriminate, I believe this is applicable to the claim of any right(s).

    "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538)

    Thus the adage that “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client”.

    I'm not saying that there is never a situation where it can be advantageous to proceed pro se, I just saying that if you want to claim your rights you have to do it pro per and no one else can do it for you. I could be wrong, but this is my current understanding.

    Thanks again for your excellent, thoughtful and informative comment.

    I hope you have a great day.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    PS The CJS can be a useful source but it is not binding, and it appears to be cited a lot less than it used to be.

    More broadly, federal courts attribute no significance to a declaration that a party is proceeding “in propria persona” rather than “pro se.” It has no effect and confers no benefit for a party to insist that he is proceeding in propria persona rather than “pro se.”

    It is also uniformly useless for a party to assert that the US is a corporation and that the party is not subject to its jurisdiction or some such argument. Right or wrong, it gets you nowhere and merely irritates some of the judges and their advisors.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @RadicalCenter

    So, a systematically corrupt, unfair, anti-liberty and now anti-white "government" judicial system is openly demonstrating that rules do not matter as they can be changed anytime on a whim or simply ignored by those in power and that there is no way to challenge their "jurisdiction"?

    Seems fair.

    So much winning Freedom!

  41. It is a Covid-Etat.

    Leaked Emails PROVE Democrats Covered Up Low Covid Numbers Which Could have Undermined Lockdown


  42. @macilrae
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!
     
    She's writing to say that mask-wearing is "unconstitutional", futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity - and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not - a huge factor is also the "freedoms" in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences - and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people - and it you're not, you could be infecting them. True, you'll get a lot of attention if that's what you need.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @Adam Smith, @Piglet

    Your numbers are deaths WITH the COVID-one-niner, Mr. Macilrae. Who knows by how much they differ from deaths solely FROM the COVID-one-niner, though we have an idea that we’re talking a factor of 10? Does this logging of deaths vary from country to country? There are lots of incentives in America, financial and political, to lean toward the “yep, next patient please, just another victim of Corona-vi disease.”*

    As far as you last sentence, actually, the only attention we need is from the Governors and other control freaks, so they will understand “you can’t legally force this face-diapering on us.”. That’s all. 30 years ago, if you’d told me that the future of this country was one that resembled being governed being hysterical women, I wouldn’t have believed you. “Nope.”

    .

    * My apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits.

    OK, now both videos have to go up, in reverse order. Sorry, Michelle, this is just what I gotta do occasionally.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Wear your bitch cloth Achmed!

    You're scaring macilrae.

    Stop scaring the crazy person.

  43. @mark tapley
    @Corvinus

    The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights. Judges are not the only ones who can interpret the law and it is self evident that among these rights are to be left alone, to be secure in our personal effects including our property and businesses and that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon.

    Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry, even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified. The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see. The fake virus with it's fake test and fake CDC numbers was laid out years ago but implemented by the globalist clique along with the staged rioting as a cover for another massive theft of trillions more by their banking cartel as was done in 08-09.

    We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights. Breyer always votes with the radical Jews Ginsberg, Kagan and the Puerto Rican Jew Sotomayor. As for Roberts he was brought in originally to legalize the fraudulent Obama Care tax for the super rich controlled HMO's and drag us further down the socialist road.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Corvinus

    “The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights.”

    Corrected For Accuracy –> The court system as the third branch of government has been used to protect Constitutionally-protected freedoms.

    “that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon”.

    We the People, to Promote the General Welfare, have enabled our representatives to pass laws that protects our health. That is exactly what was done with the gathering restrictions.

    “Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry,

    Sometimes, assuredly. Always? No.

    “even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified.”

    The reality is that Covid-19 is real. YOU want to believe otherwise.

    “The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see”.

    Praytell, are Jews in your closet, under your bed, or both?

    “We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights.”

    Indeed, this statement affirms you have been duped.

    • Replies: @Sya Beerens
    @Corvinus

    Can you prove that the "reality IS" that Covid19 isn't the same virus as the seasonal influenza?

    The symptoms are identical to catching a cold-down with the flu

    Babies and the elderly are at risk that's why there's such thing as an anti flu vaccination.

    This is the same non discussion therefore endlessly discussed as "9/11 is/isn't an inside job"


    Why are you still torturing random Arabs/Muslims for "information" 19 years post breaking brainwash?

    "High IQ whites" 🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀️

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

  44. anonymous[771] • Disclaimer says:
    @RadicalCenter
    @mark tapley

    Wonderful comment.

    I would just note that while I am no socialist, the obamacare system is more fascist than socialist. Forcing people to buy a product or service from a private for-profit corporation is not socialism.

    And yes, “justice” John Roberts is a disgrace and an enabler of oppression. It is past time for Congress to strip the US Supreme Court of all jurisdiction not expressly conferred by the Constitution, to cabin the “high court’s interference and limit the damage that those pompous jackasses can do.

    As for the lower federal courts — US District Courts and US Courts of Appeals (“circuit courts) — the Constitution does not even require the creation of such courts. Congress has the constitutional authority to limit the lower courts’ jurisdiction in any way it chooses, and it should do so.

    Replies: @anonymous

    Yes, “past time” is sadly correct.

    Today’s Congress is happy to have ceded its legislative authority on domestic issues to unelected rulers in robes. (And neither of these “branches” wants to play any part in the wars waged without Constitutional authority by the executive.) I wouldn’t be surprised if half its members are unaware of their authority that you have described.

  45. @RadicalCenter
    @Adam Smith

    PS The CJS can be a useful source but it is not binding, and it appears to be cited a lot less than it used to be.

    More broadly, federal courts attribute no significance to a declaration that a party is proceeding “in propria persona” rather than “pro se.” It has no effect and confers no benefit for a party to insist that he is proceeding in propria persona rather than “pro se.”

    It is also uniformly useless for a party to assert that the US is a corporation and that the party is not subject to its jurisdiction or some such argument. Right or wrong, it gets you nowhere and merely irritates some of the judges and their advisors.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    So, a systematically corrupt, unfair, anti-liberty and now anti-white “government” judicial system is openly demonstrating that rules do not matter as they can be changed anytime on a whim or simply ignored by those in power and that there is no way to challenge their “jurisdiction”?

    Seems fair.

    So much winning Freedom!

  46. @Achmed E. Newman
    @macilrae

    Your numbers are deaths WITH the COVID-one-niner, Mr. Macilrae. Who knows by how much they differ from deaths solely FROM the COVID-one-niner, though we have an idea that we're talking a factor of 10? Does this logging of deaths vary from country to country? There are lots of incentives in America, financial and political, to lean toward the "yep, next patient please, just another victim of Corona-vi disease."*

    As far as you last sentence, actually, the only attention we need is from the Governors and other control freaks, so they will understand "you can't legally force this face-diapering on us.". That's all. 30 years ago, if you'd told me that the future of this country was one that resembled being governed being hysterical women, I wouldn't have believed you. "Nope."

    .

    * My apologies to Mark Knofler and Dire Straits.


    OK, now both videos have to go up, in reverse order. Sorry, Michelle, this is just what I gotta do occasionally.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3X3rKtruSg

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    Wear your bitch cloth Achmed!

    You’re scaring macilrae.

    Stop scaring the crazy person.

  47. @macilrae
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!
     
    She's writing to say that mask-wearing is "unconstitutional", futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity - and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not - a huge factor is also the "freedoms" in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences - and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people - and it you're not, you could be infecting them. True, you'll get a lot of attention if that's what you need.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @Adam Smith, @Piglet

    even if you are right, you are scaring people

    I propose a new rule…

    Sane people must do whatever insane people want us to do so we don’t scare them.

  48. @RadicalCenter
    @macilrae

    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their medical ignorance and irrational paranoia. We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.

    We’re scaring YOU? You’re scaring US, brother. The hysterical sheeple are acquiescing in disproportionate draconian measures that are wrecking our livelihoods, preventing our children from having a normal healthy childhood, destroying normal human interaction and friendliness, causing poverty and despair in tens of millions of people who were at no serious risk whatsoever of dying from this virus, and rapidly helping to finish building a police state that will be very difficult to dislodge without much further suffering and violence. Yeah, we scare YOU.

    Try to think straight and calmly evaluate the evidence — and that has to include an assessment of the systematic fabrication and exaggeration of the virus’s severity and lethality. Fabrication and exaggeration by government and corporate powers who greatly benefit and profit from the hysteria and the lockdowns.

    What we want is not “attention”, but to be left alone to live (somewhat) freely as we were before he plandemic. We do not need attention from uniformed thugs or the easily frightened sheeple who submit to them and empower them to monitor and control us like cattle (or prisoners).

    Replies: @macilrae, @Chaco Cortes

    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their . We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.

    OK so you have personally determined that the present COVID epidemic (if I may use the word?) is an “overreaction” resulting from “medical ignorance and irrational paranoia”. And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country.

    Really, there is nothing to say to either of you other than “time will undoubtedly tell” – you could be right but it will be tough if you are wrong. I’ll be following the rule and presumably you won’t.

    Meanwhile, however, I’d be interested to see how far you would be willing to go in defense of your principles.

    We do a lot of socially mandated things we’d rather not do – we pay taxes yet we know that our money will be diverted to causes that we abhor and probably 80% of that hard-earned money will be squandered. We go to prison, otherwise. These days we are very careful about where we smoke (in former times, anybody objecting just had to stay out of our damned way) because, it is alleged, we will make others sick. Here, too, “we” wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law – are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?

    And, if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless – or not at all – on principle?

    And, if you needed to visit an elderly relative in a care home where masks were mandated, would you walk in maskless (as Pence did in the Mayo) just to show all the sheep that you aren’t stupid, like them?

    Or, if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?

    As I said earlier, even if I didn’t believe in masks I’d still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority – I take it as the price of living in society. And I do believe they confer benefit – even though, probably like you, I confess “medical ignorance”.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @macilrae


    And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country
     
    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.

    Here, too, “we” wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law
     
    There is no "law" that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of...
    (Executive orders are not laws.)

    are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?
     
    Yes I am.

    if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless – or not at all – on principle?
     
    I would never send a child to a "government" indoctrination camp.
    Sending a child to "government" "school" is child abuse.
    It is the parents responsibility to educate their own children.
    I recommend homeschooling.

    if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?
     
    My wife is my dearest friend and we disagree on masking. We have not shunned each other and we have not fought about it. We are both reasonable, sensible people who believe in freedom. I will continue to assert our rights even if you fear me for doing so.

    even if I didn’t believe in masks I’d still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority...
     
    Where's your flea collar?
    Flea collars save lives!

    Replies: @macilrae

  49. @Kratoklastes
    @Adam Smith


    What in the holy hell is going on in Victoria?
     
    Business as usual, as far as government metastasis is concerned. (FWIW: I'm in Victoria).

    This whole power-grab is what people simply refuse to understand about the 'political means': the dynamic consequences.

    Over time, governments will expand their power, because of the types of people attracted to political life (i.e., megalomanaical sociopaths); this dynamic will be almost impossible to stop because of the immense cost of obtaining redress and the institutional hurdles involved.

    If people go through the approved channels to challenge government creep, they will wind up dead (from old age or COVID) or broke before there is any final resolution.

    The judge mentioned in the article is a Federal judge, but he's only in a District court: if the state politicians wanted to put the nail in the coffin of the reversal, they would appeal it all the way to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS would side with the governor. The BlackRobes are power's lickspittle: they are selected by politicians after a lifetime of proving that they are 'safe hands'.

    .

    Similarly, when Clive Palmer challenged the constitutionality of the Western Australia border closure, the preliminary Federal Court dickhead (Darryl Rangia) thought that the fact(sic) that border closures might be effective was relevant.

    The effectiveness of the border closures is absolutely not relevant: the issue is whether the Western Australian government has a valid constitutional ground on which to pass legislation that closes the fucking border. Border closures prima facie violate s92 of the Australian Constitution.

    Little wonder it took Rangiah 17 years to get silk - in Queensland.

    He did law at QUT - a glorified TAFE - 5 years after he failed to get an Honours degree (in Economics) from ANU.

    So he's not numerate enough to understand statistical arguments as to whether or not a border closure has any obectively-verifiable merit as a tool against a moderately-harmful virus that very rarely causes a respiratory illness that can be lethal to very old people and chronically-ill people. (99.7% of all people who contract coronavirus, suffer no long-term harm - and at the moment we are in a 'casedemic'... fuck-all people are dying or have died: Australia will lose about a normal years' worth of deaths from Influenza-Like Illnesses, including COVID19).

    Being objectively second-rate doesn't matter once you get picked by the political class - you get to wear the silly costume, so all your inadequacy is washed away.

    This is why Australia needs a Federal Judicial Commission and a Federal Corruption Commission - even though such things end up full of 'safe hands' political apparatchiks: otherwise, it will become clear to people faced with manifest judicial/political bias/corruption, that they would be best served to take matters into their own hands.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    Over time, governments will expand their power, because of the types of people attracted to political life (i.e., megalomanaical sociopaths)

    This is the root of the problem. The real problem that we all should be fighting against. It is a problem that cannot be fought from within the system. Chopping at the leaves and branches will not destroy the root. I only see two solutions to the problem…

    Capitulation is not one of them.

  50. @macilrae
    @RadicalCenter



    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their . We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.
     
    OK so you have personally determined that the present COVID epidemic (if I may use the word?) is an "overreaction" resulting from "medical ignorance and irrational paranoia". And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country.

    Really, there is nothing to say to either of you other than "time will undoubtedly tell" - you could be right but it will be tough if you are wrong. I'll be following the rule and presumably you won't.

    Meanwhile, however, I'd be interested to see how far you would be willing to go in defense of your principles.

    We do a lot of socially mandated things we'd rather not do - we pay taxes yet we know that our money will be diverted to causes that we abhor and probably 80% of that hard-earned money will be squandered. We go to prison, otherwise. These days we are very careful about where we smoke (in former times, anybody objecting just had to stay out of our damned way) because, it is alleged, we will make others sick. Here, too, "we" wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law - are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?

    And, if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless - or not at all - on principle?

    And, if you needed to visit an elderly relative in a care home where masks were mandated, would you walk in maskless (as Pence did in the Mayo) just to show all the sheep that you aren't stupid, like them?

    Or, if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?

    As I said earlier, even if I didn't believe in masks I'd still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority - I take it as the price of living in society. And I do believe they confer benefit - even though, probably like you, I confess "medical ignorance".

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country

    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.

    Here, too, “we” wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law

    There is no “law” that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of…
    (Executive orders are not laws.)

    are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?

    Yes I am.

    if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless – or not at all – on principle?

    I would never send a child to a “government” indoctrination camp.
    Sending a child to “government” “school” is child abuse.
    It is the parents responsibility to educate their own children.
    I recommend homeschooling.

    if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?

    My wife is my dearest friend and we disagree on masking. We have not shunned each other and we have not fought about it. We are both reasonable, sensible people who believe in freedom. I will continue to assert our rights even if you fear me for doing so.

    even if I didn’t believe in masks I’d still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority…

    Where’s your flea collar?
    Flea collars save lives!

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @macilrae
    @Adam Smith


    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.
     
    Ask a NY emergency department doctor who attended back in May/June their opinion - many of the excess deaths in USA and UK have been in care homes where there are no intensive care facilities - ask "Why weren't these patients sent to hospital where they might have been saved?" The answer is that the hospital ICUs were crammed to overflowing with people on scarce ventilators - as in Italy, an age cut-off was arbitrarily applied and your old folk were just left to die.

    Fraudulent numbers my eye!


    There is no “law” that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of…
     
    You are obfuscating - my relative in Korea reports masks are mandatory there as they are in stores in Canada. Your thinking is very insular.

    I note you dodged my question about wearing a mask when visiting Mom in a care home.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

  51. @macilrae
    @Achmed E. Newman


    That’s what the hell Mrs. Malkin and others have been doing, and that’s what she just got done writing about in this very column!
     
    She's writing to say that mask-wearing is "unconstitutional", futile and symbolic of mass-stupidity - and she resents it.

    Take a look, though, at the numbers of COVID deaths per million population in the following mask-obsessed societies:

    Taiwan 0.3, Hong Kong 14, Singapore 5, Japan 12 and South Korea 7.

    Now compare USA 537, UK 672, Belgium 863, Canada 287.

    Am I saying these shocking differences are all down to mask wearing? No I am not - a huge factor is also the "freedoms" in Western countries to flout the rules of society and take no consequences - and, just for example, to strut around proudly declaring that you do not believe in wearing a mask and, even if you are right, you are scaring people - and it you're not, you could be infecting them. True, you'll get a lot of attention if that's what you need.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @Adam Smith, @Piglet

    Is mask wearing the only variable between these countries?

    • Replies: @macilrae
    @Piglet


    Is mask wearing the only variable between these countries?
     
    No, of course not - I went out of my way to emphasize that. One of the biggest factors is social discipline and another is organizational efficiency. Yet another is obesity; with related hypertension and diabetes.
    South Korea, with its energy, pride, excellent organization and discipline is an exemplar - and there are very few obese Koreans. They also have a super (free) healthcare system.
  52. @Adam Smith
    @macilrae


    And I am assuming that, like your fellow dissident Achmed E. Newman, you refuse to believe the numbers published by the WHO and asserted as accurate by each country
     
    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.

    Here, too, “we” wear the mask for the same reason. Governments around the world are making it the law
     
    There is no "law" that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of...
    (Executive orders are not laws.)

    are you willing to go to prison for your belief if necessary?
     
    Yes I am.

    if you had school age kids whose school required them to come in masks, would you refuse to do that? Sending them in maskless – or not at all – on principle?
     
    I would never send a child to a "government" indoctrination camp.
    Sending a child to "government" "school" is child abuse.
    It is the parents responsibility to educate their own children.
    I recommend homeschooling.

    if your wife or your dearest friend believed in wearing masks would you shun them or would you persist in asserting your rights?
     
    My wife is my dearest friend and we disagree on masking. We have not shunned each other and we have not fought about it. We are both reasonable, sensible people who believe in freedom. I will continue to assert our rights even if you fear me for doing so.

    even if I didn’t believe in masks I’d still wear them because I prefer the mild (the very mild) discomfort to needlessly upsetting the majority...
     
    Where's your flea collar?
    Flea collars save lives!

    Replies: @macilrae

    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.

    Ask a NY emergency department doctor who attended back in May/June their opinion – many of the excess deaths in USA and UK have been in care homes where there are no intensive care facilities – ask “Why weren’t these patients sent to hospital where they might have been saved?” The answer is that the hospital ICUs were crammed to overflowing with people on scarce ventilators – as in Italy, an age cut-off was arbitrarily applied and your old folk were just left to die.

    Fraudulent numbers my eye!

    There is no “law” that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of…

    You are obfuscating – my relative in Korea reports masks are mandatory there as they are in stores in Canada. Your thinking is very insular.

    I note you dodged my question about wearing a mask when visiting Mom in a care home.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @macilrae

    The numbers are clearly fraudulent.

    Even the CDC admits...


    For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.
     
    In my opinion even these Cases! are over blown. The rt-PCR test should not be used to diagnose anything and there is no way that the test can accurately detect different corona viruses. For example, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health informs us that...

    Sequence analysis of 11 samples found that SARS-CoV-2 is in the same species as SARS-CoV; the 2 viruses are 94.6% similar in amino acid sequence.
     
    From a paper titled “Cross-Protection against a Human Enteric Coronavirus and a Virulent Bovine Enteric Coronavirus in Gnotobiotic Calves” we learn…

    A group 2 human coronavirus designated HECV-4408 was isolated from a child with acute diarrhea and is antigenically and genetically more closely related to bovine coronavirus (BCoV) than to human coronavirus OC43…

    These results support and extend the previous report that HECV-4408 is likely a variant of bovine coronavirus. They confirm its infectivity for calves and complete cross-protection against a bovine coronavirus (DB2 strain) showing 98.2% amino acid identity to HECV-4408 in the S protein…

    Although coronaviruses were previously thought to be extremely species and tissue specific, interspecies transmission of animal coronaviruses has been reported…
     

    I do not believe that current testing, as administered, can accurately tell the difference between these different yet remarkably similar viruses in the real world at this time. I also believe that the tests are easily contaminated and that if you amplify a piece of genetic material enough times with the rt-PCR test that almost anything will trigger a positive result.

    You can read my comment about the testing of remarkably similar corona viruses here...

    https://www.unz.com/chopkins/invasion-of-the-new-normals/?showcomments#comment-4094241

    I am not obfuscating. There is no "thou shall wear a face diaper" law.
    A sign saying "thou shall wear a face diaper" does not actually make diapering mandatory any more than a sign saying "thou shall wear a flea collar" makes collaring mandatory.

    I didn't dodge, just an oversight...


    And, if you needed to visit an elderly relative in a care home where masks were mandated, would you walk in maskless (as Pence did in the Mayo) just to show all the sheep that you aren’t stupid, like them?
     
    Well, I guess it depends on the situation. If they would let me in the door without the diaper I probably wouldn't wear one. If they wouldn't let me in without the diaper, and I had to go in, I would wear it to gain entrance and then remove it once I arrived in my elderly relative's room, unless my elderly relative was uncomfortable with my non-diapering, in which case I wouldn't visit often. If I thought I had a contagious virus I would not go to a nursing home, or work, or the store. I would quarantine myself, which in my case is very easy to do as I am a friendly hermit who does not go many places anyway. I would eat chicken soup, drink lots of water, take vitamin c and get plenty of sleep.

    The other day you wrote...


    even if you are right, you are scaring people
     
    Thank you for your honesty. I think this is an important part of the global psyop. Fearful people are easier to control and can be quite irrational. I do however think you are blaming the wrong people for your fear. I think you have been made fearful by the "government", the "authorities" and the media. I think it is irrational to fear people who are unwilling to play along with insanity.

    Obviously, you are more than welcome to wear your beloved face diaper, but please stop pretending that it is "the law!" or that it is somehow "mandatory" for everyone to do so. Please stop pretending that people who choose to not partake of the sickness charade are somehow dangerous or immoral. Please stop pretending that masks and vaccines only work if everyone does it without exception. Please stop being so afraid of people who are willing to fight for the rights we all have.

    I truly hope you can overcome your fear.
    I truly hope you have a great day.

  53. @Piglet
    @macilrae

    Is mask wearing the only variable between these countries?

    Replies: @macilrae

    Is mask wearing the only variable between these countries?

    No, of course not – I went out of my way to emphasize that. One of the biggest factors is social discipline and another is organizational efficiency. Yet another is obesity; with related hypertension and diabetes.
    South Korea, with its energy, pride, excellent organization and discipline is an exemplar – and there are very few obese Koreans. They also have a super (free) healthcare system.

  54. @Corvinus
    @mark tapley

    "The unconstitutional overreach of the court system is being used to limit our inalienable rights."

    Corrected For Accuracy --> The court system as the third branch of government has been used to protect Constitutionally-protected freedoms.

    "that our freedom of assembly cannot be encroached upon".

    We the People, to Promote the General Welfare, have enabled our representatives to pass laws that protects our health. That is exactly what was done with the gathering restrictions.

    "Governments will always use any contingency as an excuse to increase its power over the citizenry,

    Sometimes, assuredly. Always? No.

    "even a fake virus that has never been isolated or identified."

    The reality is that Covid-19 is real. YOU want to believe otherwise.

    "The manner in which this scam has been promoted by the Zionists propaganda from the beginning should be easy for all to see".

    Praytell, are Jews in your closet, under your bed, or both?

    "We no longer have a Republic but rather a Kakocracy of the worst in which the highest court aligns with the Zionists and their operatives and colludes with the legislative and executive branches in direct attacks on our liberties under another carefully designed artifice in order to deceive the public into relinquishing their God given natural rights."

    Indeed, this statement affirms you have been duped.

    Replies: @Sya Beerens

    Can you prove that the “reality IS” that Covid19 isn’t the same virus as the seasonal influenza?

    The symptoms are identical to catching a cold-down with the flu

    Babies and the elderly are at risk that’s why there’s such thing as an anti flu vaccination.

    This is the same non discussion therefore endlessly discussed as “9/11 is/isn’t an inside job”

    Why are you still torturing random Arabs/Muslims for “information” 19 years post breaking brainwash?

    “High IQ whites” 🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀️

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    @Sya Beerens



    Babies and the elderly are at risk that’s why there’s such thing as an anti flu vaccination.

     

    Babies at risk? 20 (twenty) under 1 (one) year total frem Covid-19.

    Vaccine for flu exists? Flu eliminated then? No? Still 10,000s die from flu still?
  55. @macilrae
    @Adam Smith


    The numbers you speak of are clearly fraudulent.
     
    Ask a NY emergency department doctor who attended back in May/June their opinion - many of the excess deaths in USA and UK have been in care homes where there are no intensive care facilities - ask "Why weren't these patients sent to hospital where they might have been saved?" The answer is that the hospital ICUs were crammed to overflowing with people on scarce ventilators - as in Italy, an age cut-off was arbitrarily applied and your old folk were just left to die.

    Fraudulent numbers my eye!


    There is no “law” that says thou shall wear a face diaper.
    Show me this law that you speak of…
     
    You are obfuscating - my relative in Korea reports masks are mandatory there as they are in stores in Canada. Your thinking is very insular.

    I note you dodged my question about wearing a mask when visiting Mom in a care home.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    The numbers are clearly fraudulent.

    Even the CDC admits…

    For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.

    In my opinion even these Cases! are over blown. The rt-PCR test should not be used to diagnose anything and there is no way that the test can accurately detect different corona viruses. For example, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health informs us that…

    Sequence analysis of 11 samples found that SARS-CoV-2 is in the same species as SARS-CoV; the 2 viruses are 94.6% similar in amino acid sequence.

    From a paper titled “Cross-Protection against a Human Enteric Coronavirus and a Virulent Bovine Enteric Coronavirus in Gnotobiotic Calves” we learn…

    A group 2 human coronavirus designated HECV-4408 was isolated from a child with acute diarrhea and is antigenically and genetically more closely related to bovine coronavirus (BCoV) than to human coronavirus OC43…

    These results support and extend the previous report that HECV-4408 is likely a variant of bovine coronavirus. They confirm its infectivity for calves and complete cross-protection against a bovine coronavirus (DB2 strain) showing 98.2% amino acid identity to HECV-4408 in the S protein…

    Although coronaviruses were previously thought to be extremely species and tissue specific, interspecies transmission of animal coronaviruses has been reported…

    I do not believe that current testing, as administered, can accurately tell the difference between these different yet remarkably similar viruses in the real world at this time. I also believe that the tests are easily contaminated and that if you amplify a piece of genetic material enough times with the rt-PCR test that almost anything will trigger a positive result.

    You can read my comment about the testing of remarkably similar corona viruses here…

    https://www.unz.com/chopkins/invasion-of-the-new-normals/?showcomments#comment-4094241

    I am not obfuscating. There is no “thou shall wear a face diaper” law.
    A sign saying “thou shall wear a face diaper” does not actually make diapering mandatory any more than a sign saying “thou shall wear a flea collar” makes collaring mandatory.

    I didn’t dodge, just an oversight…

    And, if you needed to visit an elderly relative in a care home where masks were mandated, would you walk in maskless (as Pence did in the Mayo) just to show all the sheep that you aren’t stupid, like them?

    Well, I guess it depends on the situation. If they would let me in the door without the diaper I probably wouldn’t wear one. If they wouldn’t let me in without the diaper, and I had to go in, I would wear it to gain entrance and then remove it once I arrived in my elderly relative’s room, unless my elderly relative was uncomfortable with my non-diapering, in which case I wouldn’t visit often. If I thought I had a contagious virus I would not go to a nursing home, or work, or the store. I would quarantine myself, which in my case is very easy to do as I am a friendly hermit who does not go many places anyway. I would eat chicken soup, drink lots of water, take vitamin c and get plenty of sleep.

    The other day you wrote…

    even if you are right, you are scaring people

    Thank you for your honesty. I think this is an important part of the global psyop. Fearful people are easier to control and can be quite irrational. I do however think you are blaming the wrong people for your fear. I think you have been made fearful by the “government”, the “authorities” and the media. I think it is irrational to fear people who are unwilling to play along with insanity.

    Obviously, you are more than welcome to wear your beloved face diaper, but please stop pretending that it is “the law!” or that it is somehow “mandatory” for everyone to do so. Please stop pretending that people who choose to not partake of the sickness charade are somehow dangerous or immoral. Please stop pretending that masks and vaccines only work if everyone does it without exception. Please stop being so afraid of people who are willing to fight for the rights we all have.

    I truly hope you can overcome your fear.
    I truly hope you have a great day.

  56. @macilrae
    @mark tapley


    here is how effective the face diapers are:
     
    A more realistic test would show the result when saliva droplets are expelled during coughing - here a similar demo is dramatic in showing the difference when a mask is worn. Also, and obviously, if the mask used is of a type where there is as exhalation valve (as in his last demo), this will only protect the wearer!

    The problem with being a doctor of 36 years' experience is that your patients look upon you as being all-knowing and, in that length of time, there's a danger you'll come to believe it too.

    Anyhow - I sense there is much more to this controversy than whether the masks work or not.

    Replies: @mark tapley

    Read my post #7. Rappaport lays out how they coordinate all these fake virus scams including the AIDS “epidemic”. One of the subsidiaries of the criminal CDC has done extensive testing on masks in the manner you suggest. I had the study saved but cannot find it. Dr. Noel that exposed Hillary’s Parkinsons did a mask test- here it is:


    • Replies: @macilrae
    @mark tapley

    Mark. This video was already referenced by you and I commented that spluttered saliva would give a very different result from tiny vape particles. Just ask yourself why almost all doctors now wear a mask and then ask "why do I know better than them?" Also I'm not sure what sort of doctor Noel is but if he goes into the OR I'll bet he wears one there - why?

    Replies: @mark tapley, @mark tapley

  57. @Sya Beerens
    @Corvinus

    Can you prove that the "reality IS" that Covid19 isn't the same virus as the seasonal influenza?

    The symptoms are identical to catching a cold-down with the flu

    Babies and the elderly are at risk that's why there's such thing as an anti flu vaccination.

    This is the same non discussion therefore endlessly discussed as "9/11 is/isn't an inside job"


    Why are you still torturing random Arabs/Muslims for "information" 19 years post breaking brainwash?

    "High IQ whites" 🦹‍♂️🦹‍♀️

    Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome

    Babies and the elderly are at risk that’s why there’s such thing as an anti flu vaccination.

    Babies at risk? 20 (twenty) under 1 (one) year total frem Covid-19.

    Vaccine for flu exists? Flu eliminated then? No? Still 10,000s die from flu still?

  58. I think nobody denies that many deaths have been recorded as being due to COVID-19 where there was no confirming test result – testing a corpse is a waste of this scarce resource. At the same time there have undoubtedly been many deaths recorded as simply “pneumonia” because no test was done. However when you look at the excess deaths in most countries where reliable data are available it’s immediately obvious that something strikingly different has been going on, starting around March of this year. Excess death numbers are impossible to conceal – or exaggerate.

    Also, it is very possible to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and have no symptoms at all – or symptoms too mild to warrant seeing a doctor. I, myself, had a chest infection back in mid-February which, today, would be taken seriously but which, back then, my doctor discounted. On top of that, and as of this writing, it is impossible for an ordinary person with mild symptoms or exposure to get a timely COVID-19 test in England – the facilities are swamped and the web-site for appointments is down. For these reasons reported numbers of infections will be low.

    Mr Trump himself said that the more you test the more infections you have to report!

    Not being a biologist I don’t know the prevalence of the bovine corona-virus you mention in humans but the article you quote doesn’t state that it will test as positive for SARS-CoV-2 or, for that matter that SARS-C0V would either. I can imagine that the occurrence of either in the general population would be negligible.

    As for mandatory mask wearing, and as you seem only to be concerned about the United States, please see the following list of States where mask-wearing is a requirement:
    https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/facing-your-face-mask-duties-list-statewide-orders
    And let’s not quibble about the difference between a “requirement” and the “law”! As I said, outside the USA many countries have similar mandates.

    I am glad to see that you’d agree to wear a mask in order to gain entrance to a care home where, hypothetically, a dear and aged relative was confined. Once you were in the room, though, you would slip the mask off because you are 100% certain there is no threat whatever to your dear one – unless they objected, in which case you’d probably not be a frequent visitor. Dear me!

    The truth is that NOBODY knows for sure whether mask wearing is beneficial of not – and until there is contrary proof I am going to follow the example of 99.9% of medical professionals.

    Jesus, man, I think we spent enough time here.

  59. @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    Read my post #7. Rappaport lays out how they coordinate all these fake virus scams including the AIDS "epidemic". One of the subsidiaries of the criminal CDC has done extensive testing on masks in the manner you suggest. I had the study saved but cannot find it. Dr. Noel that exposed Hillary's Parkinsons did a mask test- here it is:

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/HrZ6AWG9vrXN/

    Replies: @macilrae

    Mark. This video was already referenced by you and I commented that spluttered saliva would give a very different result from tiny vape particles. Just ask yourself why almost all doctors now wear a mask and then ask “why do I know better than them?” Also I’m not sure what sort of doctor Noel is but if he goes into the OR I’ll bet he wears one there – why?

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    You can see from Noel's video that the masks don't even block an aerosol thats composed of large droplets. How could they block the much smaller virus assuming there were one? Viruses (if that is what is really being pictured) can only be photographed by an electron microscope. A subsidiary of the CDC has shown (report was also posted by Rappaport) that the masks are ineffective. In February this year chief criminal Fauchi in an interview stated the same thing but of course this video has be deleted.

    When I go to town I make a special effort to look at all the cucks with their face diapers on. I have not seen one yet that had a mask that sealed properly. This scam has all of the characteristics of a typical gov. psyop. Rappaport (see my previous post) lays out how they set them all up. Just like the AIDS "epidemic" not one real scientific laboratory has purified, isolated and identified this hoax virus. As for doctors, they will rarely oppose the medical establishment. As the plagiarist Pasteur is reported to have admitted on his death bed, "it's not in the disease but in the terrain." A friend of mine told me her brother-in-law had severe diabetes with blood glucose running over 700. He died of a brain hemorrhage. Reported cause of death Covid 19.

    , @mark tapley
    @macilrae

    ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG ON FACIAL MASKS:

    “As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.

    They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.

    And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.

    Their conclusion:

    ‘It Would Appear That Minimum Contamination Can Best Be Achieved By Not Wearing A Mask At All’ And That Wearing A Mask During Surgery ‘Is A Standard Procedure That Could Be Abandoned.’

    I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke, and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.

    But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

    Check the following citations and see for yourself:

    Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’


    Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’


    Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.


    In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.


    A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’


    Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’


    Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.


    Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’


    Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.


    Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries.


    Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.


    Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’


    Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’


    Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.


    ‘Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them.

    It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

    Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have
    mandated masks.

    Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.

    All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

    ‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”

    Read more at naturallyhealthynews.com

    PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

  60. I have to add one more thing, being of an experimental nature.

    I have a lovely, old-style, chemical balance as a decoration in my family room – it’s still in perfect order and has an accuracy to better than 1 mg.

    I took a new standard face mask and weighed it. Then I put it on my face and coughed four times (yes quite energetically, yet not deliberately projecting saliva). Weighing it again immediately I found an increase of 77 mg.

    This means the mask captured a significant percentage of my expectorated saliva (could have been some sputum there too). That is 77 mg of potentially infectious material that would be prevented from entering the breathing-zone of others.

    Nobody is claiming face masks as a panacea but they have to have value in 2 way protection.

    Now I shall definitely shut up!

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  61. @macilrae
    @mark tapley

    Mark. This video was already referenced by you and I commented that spluttered saliva would give a very different result from tiny vape particles. Just ask yourself why almost all doctors now wear a mask and then ask "why do I know better than them?" Also I'm not sure what sort of doctor Noel is but if he goes into the OR I'll bet he wears one there - why?

    Replies: @mark tapley, @mark tapley

    You can see from Noel’s video that the masks don’t even block an aerosol thats composed of large droplets. How could they block the much smaller virus assuming there were one? Viruses (if that is what is really being pictured) can only be photographed by an electron microscope. A subsidiary of the CDC has shown (report was also posted by Rappaport) that the masks are ineffective. In February this year chief criminal Fauchi in an interview stated the same thing but of course this video has be deleted.

    When I go to town I make a special effort to look at all the cucks with their face diapers on. I have not seen one yet that had a mask that sealed properly. This scam has all of the characteristics of a typical gov. psyop. Rappaport (see my previous post) lays out how they set them all up. Just like the AIDS “epidemic” not one real scientific laboratory has purified, isolated and identified this hoax virus. As for doctors, they will rarely oppose the medical establishment. As the plagiarist Pasteur is reported to have admitted on his death bed, “it’s not in the disease but in the terrain.” A friend of mine told me her brother-in-law had severe diabetes with blood glucose running over 700. He died of a brain hemorrhage. Reported cause of death Covid 19.

  62. @macilrae
    @mark tapley

    Mark. This video was already referenced by you and I commented that spluttered saliva would give a very different result from tiny vape particles. Just ask yourself why almost all doctors now wear a mask and then ask "why do I know better than them?" Also I'm not sure what sort of doctor Noel is but if he goes into the OR I'll bet he wears one there - why?

    Replies: @mark tapley, @mark tapley

    ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG ON FACIAL MASKS:

    [MORE]

    “As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.

    They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.

    And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.

    Their conclusion:

    ‘It Would Appear That Minimum Contamination Can Best Be Achieved By Not Wearing A Mask At All’ And That Wearing A Mask During Surgery ‘Is A Standard Procedure That Could Be Abandoned.’

    I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke, and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.

    But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

    Check the following citations and see for yourself:

    Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’

    Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’

    Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

    In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

    A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’

    Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’

    Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

    Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’

    Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

    Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries.

    Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

    Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’

    Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’

    Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.

    ‘Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them.

    It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.

    Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have
    mandated masks.

    Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.

    All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.

    ‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”

    Read more at naturallyhealthynews.com

    PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  63. We need, right now, to demand a:

    Senate Committee to Investigate the US domestic response to Covid 19

    Hopefully Michelle, Ann Coulter, Scott Adams, Ned Ryun, Columbia Bugle, and Steve Sailor can start generating interest in this.

    We need to know who (CCP) was involved externally, internally, the players, the politicians, the private sector…all of it.

  64. Arguing never changes anyone’s mind no matter what, it only makes him dig in harder.

  65. As a registered nurse who counts three other RN nurses, experienced, with a total of over 70 years of health care experience, and three Master’s degrees, and as someone who has 85 year old parents with multiple underlying conditions, I am appalled at the ignorance and stupidity of the “anti-maskers”. Of all things in the world to be motivated to protest…this? Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Replies: @Chaco Cortes
    @PapaHans


    You should be ashamed of yourself.
     
    This is a perfect example of the primary communist social control mechanism I just wrote about. If it's not for the community, it's selfish and shameful.

    In this case, we also get the Appeal to Authority fallacy (3 Masters!) to bolster the shame. I find it condescending and unconvincing.

    I saw video of some people being abused and arrested by statist enforcers recently. Watch for more of that, including Stasi. What's next? Don't touch your face. Wear goggles. Social distance or go to jail.
  66. The Wuhan Virus is China’s most valuable export. The CCP have incorporated the principles of Behaviorism to shape individual perceptions ideologically. Masking is the applied science of Behaviorism. Learning is the product of conditioning. By conditioning acceptance of mask wearing behavior, the communist method employed in their education camps is revealed.

    The primary distinguishing principle of Maoist communism is self-sacrifice for the good of the community. Ideologically, all individual actions should incorporate this attribute. Individual actions lacking any direct or indirect benefit to the community are seen as selfish. Shaping this outlook among the Chinese people has been especially important as many millions have been uprooted from historically agrarian lives and forced to adapt to a new urbanism since the cultural revolution.

    This revolutionary change has been promoted, not just by The Little Red Book, but also by western govts and titans of capitalism anxious to bring enough prosperity to previously poor peasants to convert them to consumers of products of the industrialized world. The Behavioristic method of achieving this end has met with phenomenal success.

    However, the US (and presumably other western powers) have apparently only recently recognized a fundamental ideological conflict of massive import. Individual rights and freedoms are the principle distinguishing principle on which the US constitution is based. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the individual from just the type of govt overreach that has made the Chinese model so successful in achieving a great leap forward.

    The most effective means of social control in the Chinese model is shaming. This is common throughout many Asian societies, as are efforts by individuals to save face. When it comes to masks, the highest Chinese value of self-sacrifice for the the good of the community conflicts directly with the highest American value of individual rights and freedom.

    American (now global) business will gladly sacrifice American individual rights and freedom for access to the gigantic Chinese market. After all, it’s 4 times the size of the American market, and in business the bottom line is profit, not individual rights and freedom.

    Change is inevitable. The behavior we exhibit in the aggregate indicates the direction of social change. Acceptance of masks is evidence of more acceptance of communist ideology and a devaluing of the principles of individual rights and freedom on which America was built.

    More importantly, it demonstrates the effectiveness of Behaviorist principles. It’s important to remember that ultimately, we are animals. We respond to environmental stimuli in basically the same way Pavlov’s dog responded to the bell. The learn through conditioning. We are being conditioned.

    Watch the media. See the censorship. Recognize the propaganda. None of the numbers being thrown around are reliable. Regarding masks, no conclusions can scientifically be drawn. But the pundits repeat the lies about science being the basis of their opinions. It is not. It is ideology and it it business.

  67. @PapaHans
    As a registered nurse who counts three other RN nurses, experienced, with a total of over 70 years of health care experience, and three Master's degrees, and as someone who has 85 year old parents with multiple underlying conditions, I am appalled at the ignorance and stupidity of the "anti-maskers". Of all things in the world to be motivated to protest...this? Pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Replies: @Chaco Cortes

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    This is a perfect example of the primary communist social control mechanism I just wrote about. If it’s not for the community, it’s selfish and shameful.

    In this case, we also get the Appeal to Authority fallacy (3 Masters!) to bolster the shame. I find it condescending and unconvincing.

    I saw video of some people being abused and arrested by statist enforcers recently. Watch for more of that, including Stasi. What’s next? Don’t touch your face. Wear goggles. Social distance or go to jail.

  68. @RadicalCenter
    @macilrae

    Good citizenship and reasonable cooperation with fellow citizens does not require giving up freedoms and normal human interaction to satisfy their medical ignorance and irrational paranoia. We are not required to overreact and go along with popular delusions and overreactions to problems real or exaggerated.

    We’re scaring YOU? You’re scaring US, brother. The hysterical sheeple are acquiescing in disproportionate draconian measures that are wrecking our livelihoods, preventing our children from having a normal healthy childhood, destroying normal human interaction and friendliness, causing poverty and despair in tens of millions of people who were at no serious risk whatsoever of dying from this virus, and rapidly helping to finish building a police state that will be very difficult to dislodge without much further suffering and violence. Yeah, we scare YOU.

    Try to think straight and calmly evaluate the evidence — and that has to include an assessment of the systematic fabrication and exaggeration of the virus’s severity and lethality. Fabrication and exaggeration by government and corporate powers who greatly benefit and profit from the hysteria and the lockdowns.

    What we want is not “attention”, but to be left alone to live (somewhat) freely as we were before he plandemic. We do not need attention from uniformed thugs or the easily frightened sheeple who submit to them and empower them to monitor and control us like cattle (or prisoners).

    Replies: @macilrae, @Chaco Cortes

    After reading all the comments, I pick this as the most outstanding. 100% agree. Thanks.

  69. @mark tapley
    It is amazing that people are not logical enough to investigate this virus scam for themselves but just take the word of the criminals at the CDC that have longstanding ties with big Pharma and the vaccine makers. We laugh at documentaries showing primitive natives in Borneo with bones in their nose dancing around and believing in witch doctors but lots of simps here are just as gullible. The CDC-WHO have been pumping these scams for years. H1N1, H5N1, SARS,Bird Flu, Swine Flu and the AIDS epidemic. Not one laboratory in the world has isolated and verified Covid 19 in a real peer reviewed scientific test much less the standard for all pathogens, the Koch postulate test. The same was true for AIDS.

    Remember the fake tents, and the "overflowing" empty hospitals, the phony hospital ship and the calls for the deadly respirators. CDC criminal Debra Brix even said on tv "we have told the hospitals to tag everything possible as Covid 19." And they do because they get paid a lot more. In February CDC head Fauchi admitted in an interview now deleted that the masks were counterproductive. The slavery masks are for conditioning the idiots to take orders and to keep them from forgetting about the fake virus. This is an attack on our basic natural rights to be left alone. Under our constitution the same people cannot make laws and enforce them and emergency authority given to the governors would be good for only 30 days. That still gives no one authority to violate our person, our movements, our business, and our freedom of assembly. These are unalienable rights not subject to government edict.

    Note the following report by Reporter Jon Rappaport on the methods always used to promote these fake viruses:


    ONE: Through many meetings, exercises, planning sessions, a structure is welded in place to promote and launch the IDEA of an epidemic. World Health Organization, CDC, influential public health officials attached to governments around the world, etc.

    TWO: There is a purported incident. An outbreak. The most obvious cause is intentionally overlooked. For example, horrendous air pollution, or the grotesque feces and urine pollution on a giant commercial pig factory-farm. Instead, the world is told a new virus has been found. Local researchers, if any, are augmented by researchers from CDC, WHO.

    THREE: There is no air-tight chain of evidence explaining exactly how the purported new virus was discovered. From details released, there is NO proof of discovery by convincing methods, no proper unified study of MANY supposed epidemic patients.

    FOUR: But WHO/CDC tells the world this is an epidemic in the making, caused by the new virus. The promotion and propaganda/media apparatus moves into high gear. Ominous pronouncements.

    FIVE: Diagnostic tests for the unproven new virus are rolled out. They spit out false "proof" of "infection" like coins from a jackpot slot machine. These false-positives are an inherent feature of the tests.

    SIX: Thus, all case numbers and death numbers, which are based on the tests, are rendered meaningless. And...they were already meaningless, because the supposed new virus "being tested for" was never properly discovered in the first place.

    SEVEN: Nevertheless, these tests (plus useless eyeball diagnosis) are used to build official reports on case numbers. For the duration of the "epidemic," reports keep coming, and escalating numbers are trumpeted. Within the basically meaningless structure of these reports, there is fiddling with totals, to make them more impressive and frightening.

    EIGHT: Real people are really getting sick and dying, but for the most part, they are people who are dying from traditional and long-standing conditions---flu-like illness, pneumonia, other lung infections, etc. These people are "re-packaged" under the new epidemic label---e.g., "COVID". The official description of the "new epidemic disease"---the clinical symptoms---is sufficiently general to easily allow this re-packaging.

    NINE: If there is new illness, it can be explained by causes having nothing to do with the purported new virus. For example, a toxic vaccine campaign. A highly destructive drug. Highly toxic pesticides.

    TEN: Over time, the definition of the epidemic is arbitrarily widened to include more symptoms and clinical features, in order to inflate case numbers.

    ELEVEN: Control of information about the "epidemic" is hardened at the top. The talking heads, from the press and public health agencies, know as much about actual science as rabbits know about drone strikes. But they are "in charge." Dissident information is attacked and censored.

    TWELVE: Medical drugs and procedures (e.g., ventilators) used to treat patients are quite harmful. If a vaccine is rolled out, it, too, is toxic. Illness and death resulting from these and other medical attacks are counted as "epidemic cases caused by the virus."

    THIRTEEN: ABOVE ALL OTHER ILLUSIONS, the main deception is: "the epidemic is one disease or syndrome caused by one germ." This is sold with unceasing propaganda. Most people fall for it. They will even argue among themselves about which "it" is the single cause of the "it" disease. There is no "it" cause or disease.

    FOURTEEN: The public is sold lie after lie about contagion and the "spread" of the "it."

    FIFTEEN: The public chants (as if no one has ever died before), "People are dying, it must be the virus."

    SIXTEEN: The virus fairy tale always functions as a cover story for government or corporate or medical crimes. It obscures and hides these crimes. For example, a large factory is spewing horrendous pollution into the ground and water of an area, and people are getting sick and dying? Wait, the researchers say, the cause is actually a new virus no one has ever seen before.

    As I wrote at the outset of the COVID illusion, the only difference this time, in 2020, is the weight of the lies---because they led to the lockdowns and the economic devastation. This is West Nile, SARS, Swine Flu, Zika, writ large.

    Needless to say, the persons and groups responsible for launching these illusion-operations must hide their crimes.

    The criminals have their weapons, of course. Among their most powerful: control of the press, and arcane technical language which pretends to relevance. This language is so dense, the uninitiated stand no chance of penetrating it.

    For instance, researchers can babble for hours about their vaunted diagnostic test, the PCR. However, the simple truth is, the test has never been vetted. The test has never been tested in the real world outside the lab.

    I have written about this extensively. Using a little guideline called SCIENCE, you would "test the test" by lining up, say, a thousand patients, some healthy, some sick from a supposed virus. Any virus. Tissue samples would be taken from each patient.

    PCR mavens would run these samples through their equipment, reporting which patients show what they call high "viral load."

    This means: these particular patients have millions and millions of virus actively replicating in their bodies, and they will be unmistakably and visibly sick.

    The PCR princes would then announce, "Patients 3,45,65,76,132...are all definitely sick."

    Now we un-blind the study and see what's what and who's who. Are these designated patients ill or are they running marathons? That's called simple scientific method. Not technical gobbledygook.

    This chunk of research has never been done. It never will be done. It's too real. Too naked. Proponents of the PCR would have too much to lose, if their assessments of who are healthy and who are sick turned out to be absurdly wrong, and their arcane technical rhetoric about the PCR ended up being useless gibberish.

    I include this illustration to indicate there are, indeed, ways of exposing professional liars, if you change the venue on them, if you use common sense, if you stand outside their self-appointed temples of mystical pretense and observe what their lies look like when you boil them down to human terms...

    Here is another study of the PCR test that has never been done and never will be done, in the real world: line up a thousand patients, take tissues samples from them and send the samples to 40 different labs. Have the labs run their PCRs and announce their specific findings. Compare the results. You can bet the farm the labs will come up with contrary results.

    This is part of a pattern: keep "scientific details" close to the vest; keep them "in-house"; don't permit large-scale independent studies that will either confirm or deny basic tenets of official research.

    COVID is a fraud from top to bottom. From beginning to end.

    Replies: @CatcatMeow

    But the CDC, along with the WHO, Fauci, and the US Surgeon General, did tell the trutb on this. In March, they said that masks worn by the public are not effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, and that they can be harmful when used by untrained people.

    That was the view that was supported by science. Humanity has done a lot of research on the topic of respiratory viruses over the decades since viruses were discovered. For 20 years, scientists have studed the disease SARS, (caused by the SARS-CoV-1 virus), the close cousin to COVID-19 (which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus). MERS is another pea in the pod. .

    The way these SARS family coronaviruses behave is not much different than influenza, which we’ve been studying for much longer. The Spanish flu pandemic started over a hundred years ago!

    The conclusion reached after all of this science was what we were told early in the pandemic. Masks among the public are not effective, and can be dangerous when used incorrectly (as everyone does). A month later, the advice flip-flopped, and soon after that, the petty tyrants across the fruited plain started using the CDC’s new advice as the justification to face-diaper as many people as they could.

    They did this in the name of science, even though science had indicated just the opposite. Science is a process, and it’s not a rapid one. A hypothesis (meaning an idea that is hypothetical) is proposed, and a study is designed to test it. Experiments are performed, and the result is written up and submitted to a journal for publication.

    That doesn’t make it “proven” yet. Not even close!

    The study will be criticized by a lot of scientists who know enough about the topic (and the process of science) to be able to spot weaknesses. They point them out, and the study’s author addresses them, often by revised experiments or additional data analyses. The updated study is published again, and the process repeats. If at any point it appears that the conclusion is no longer supported by the evidence, the study is withdrawn (and that happens a lot). If it still looks good after all the scrutiny, other researchers will attempt to duplicate the results. For a study to be valid, it has to be repeatable.

    Only after it runs that gauntlet and manages to survive does a study begin to be considered as potentially valid. Even then, it’s just one study, and if the idea it means to overturn is supported by many previously validated studies, it will take many validated studies to the contrary to turn the ship around. A study that seems to be valid and that contradicts existing theories on a given matter will certainly attract the interest of more scientists, as that kind of thing is interesting to them, and if the new idea is actually reflective of reality, the new idea will be increasingly accepted as more evidence accumulates. If not, the increased attention will eventually find the error that caused it to look valid when it wasn’t.

    That process takes years under the best of circumstances, and we’re still in the “fog of war,” so to speak, of the pandemic. Trying to study the pandemic from within that pandemic is difficult, as the researchers are human beings trying to live in difficult times like the rest of us. Many such scientists are professors at universities (around the world) that are closed because of the pandemic.

    The words of the CDC, WHO, etc., in March (when they said masks don’t work) still stand.

  70. How can any sane person look at the current situation and say their rights are being trampled on and we need to fight the government to keep it from forcing us to wear masks? This is an obvious sign that the kool-aid is thick and powerful. Should the government allow all the idiots in the country to walk around with TB, Smallpox, Ebola, or Malaria with no vaccine, no protective gear, just spreading it to the general population as they feel like it? That is preposterous, the same as not wearing a mask. The conservatives are so afraid of the government infringing upon their rights, but they have no problem infringing upon the rights of everyone else. They want to be in your bedroom telling you who you can marry. They want to be in your doctor’s office telling you how to manage your pregnancy. They want to be in your church telling you who to worship. They want to be in your your school telling you which bathroom to use. And in the name of freedom, they want you to be free to be scammed by banks and insurance companies. They want you to be free to not have health insurance. They want you to be free to be scammed by debt collectors. They even passed legislation keep you free from questions by your medical provider about gun ownership and access to guns by your children. But ask them to wear a mask to keep from spreading a deadly virus and it’s suddenly the end of our democracy. It’s time to get these people out of office along with their perverted ideas about freedom.

  71. The only reason I wear a mask is to ward off those with the screaming meemees, instead of having to deal with the aggressiveness/in your face idiots who would get hurt and I would end up in jail.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS