Author: Source: Renegade Tribune

Third Reich and jewish authorities worked closely together on emigration; the accounts of jews fleeing Germany in secret by night across some border are untenable; on the contrary, the German government was interested in getting rid of its jews through a process of law and policy.

by tts-admin | Mar 6, 2021 | 0 comments

When The Old Testament God made Abram an awesome job offer, he didn’t claim that he would make of him a king. The actual verse from The Good Book is much more grandiose.

12 Now the Lord had said to Abram:
“Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, To a land that I will show you.
2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Being a king wouldn’t necessarily be a bad gig. Kings get to do lots of fun things to the people they are in charge of. Samuel warns his twelve tribes accordingly when they clamored for one after the chaos of being ruled by Judges.

This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

While being a king may have its advantages, the real power position is being a nation. A nation has a unified core of similar people, with supportive, reinforcing values. A nation properly constituted has a vast collection of strong, homogenous families. These families form strong, friendly neighborhoods and demand functional “3Rs” schools.
Nations also have economies that work. They trust one another and trust is a massive economic force multiplier. Trust reduces transaction times, unproductive spending on security, and increases the altruistic motivations of economic actors. All these little things form resonance. The whole becomes a larger positive than just the sum of its disparate parts. E Pluribus Unum or something.
Nations have hierarchies and unwritten codes of honor that can’t be used against people as a passive-aggressive weapon. People have a life script that leads them to a positive ending. As long as a person follows the path, their neighbors have their back and they experience a successful series of life events that lead to a reasonably content existence. They know their place, they know their code, and they get something in return for the dedication. Regardless of your particular caste, there’s a reason to buy in and help the team win. It would make you feel sincerely patriotic to live in an actual nation.
Now a country can be a functional nation or just a surviving empire. In a nation, people are at ease around their rulers. And their rulers trust them. Security, secrecy and dark organizations are minimized. You don’t do that sort of thing to one of your own. In a surviving empire that is not a legitimate nation, the usurper hides within a motte and bailey. This is why Washington, DC has reduced itself to Firebase Capitol Hill.

“The troops will never leave.” Carlson emphasized, adding “As you probably figured out by now, the troops are in the Capitol for political reasons. They’re there to prop up the regime.” He continued “If this were happening in Cameroon, our State Department would complain about it, call it ‘an offense against democracy.’ But because it’s happening here in America, we have been slow to catch on.”

In a nation, you go to war for God and Country. Your enemies feel a condign respect married to a righteous fear. The empire inspires nothing but the mocking contempt that Arminius felt for a bumbling Lucius Verus. America is now an empire, not a legitimate nation. If you doubt that statement, remember what reaction Donald J. Trump received when he actually attempted to enforce order on America’s borders.
So why then does President Biden detest and fear White Nationalism? Because nationalism is a power-building frame. Being an empire is a desperate state in which you constantly play whack-a-mole against sullen enemies and cling to power by your fingertips. As the usurper king of a sclerotic and senescent empire, President Biden exists to retain power and not let it leak. If he were the justly anointed king of a legitimate nation, he would be scarfing more power the way a hungry man chows down at a Western Sizzlin’. A king gains power when his people want him to have it. He loses that power when they resent his position.
White Nationalism threatens this crumbling People’s Dysfunction of America. This dog’s breakfast of mutually detesting diversity would have no prayer against a rising, ethno-nationalistic, unified whole. Even the clown-show idiocy of the Charlottesville, VA Unite the Right Rally sends the bone-freezing chill of paralyzing fear through the rotting dotards. They shiver while suffering the hypogonadism of the dying American State. What is asked in private is along the lines of “What will happen when a serious conductor puts all of these clown-cars into an organized parade?”
What would happen is obvious. Every nation and every empire has a king or emperor. Caesar Augustus went around talking about restoring the republic and put SPQR on every legion’s banner. If Marcus Ginandtonicus had told him about separation of powers, he’d have ended up like Luca Brassi: sleeping with the fishes. Joe Biden knows darn well he wouldn’t be king of anything if a large, motivated group of capable people asked him what the followers of Lenin asked the followers of Kerensky. “Who chose you?”
White Nationalism is demonized as a boogieman not because it currently exists in a legitimately organized and threatening form. It is feared for its potential. When potential energy gets converted into Kinetic, stuff gets moved. The real threat of White Nationalism consists of what it could be if it ever was led by something more worthwhile and benign than the Klownshow Klux Klan.
Our current kakistocracy of demotic liars would recoil from a decent and affirmative White Nationalism the way that Nosferatu flees the crucifix. It would make a coherent group of positively motivated White People into a nation. This nation would pimp-slap Joe “Andropov” Biden’s senile empire the way Alaric and his motivated Visigoth Nation dissed and dismissed the armed might of a dying Rome. And this is why White Nationalism is feared. This also why it is so vociferously mischaracterized and demonized as racism. Maybe the fact that nobody does anything similar to Nation of Islam or La Raza Azteca tells you just how much potential our dying empire’s White Diasporas truly have.

You can believe in English nationalism so long as you don’t want to preserve the English nation.

The trial? Can you put a whole species on trial? Sooner or later, Mother Nature is likely to do that. Better examine the facts while we still retain the faculties to examine a system of lies that is slowly squeezing the life out of everyone. What it means to be human has now been practically erased from the human thought process.

Google describes psychoanalysis as a system of psychological theory and therapy that aims to treat mental disorders by investigating the interaction of conscious and unconscious elements in the mind and bringing repressed fears and conflicts into the conscious mind by such techniques as dream interpretation and free association.

In echoing the description of poet Octavio Paz that poetry investigates the world on its own, Rod Serling’s lasting definition of psychoanalysis is more lyrical than clinical. “It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge . . . an area which we call The Twilight Zone.”

If you possess the courage, Thomas Jefferson’s motto is best to follow. “There is not a truth existing which I fear, or would wish unknown to the whole world.” Not everyone can do this, to the detriment of all.

Psychoanalysisof a failed republic

Deceived public applaudscrimes as heroic actions

EVIL MEDICAL INDUSTRIES OVERTLY HARM HUMANITY

9/11 was the crime that provedthe American people would never wake up

What kind of country would allow its children to be murdered so the richest among us could ingest their terrified blood in order to lengthen their own lives?

What kind of country would allow its children to be molested by sex criminals — in schools, no less — as part of the president’s program called Drag Queen Story Hour?

This is the reality the villains who have commandeered the world’s society are jamming down out throats. Our republic cannot be saved by people who keep their mouths shut in order to “get ahead” or avoid public censure. All cowards die many deaths.

This is how it must be.

The human debate has been hijacked. It has been obscured by concocted conceptions concealing crimes that have continued from the beginning of time to this very day. Call it the constant con. Consider the evidence and then put everything you know on trial.

If it were a play, which it is, it might present like this.

1000 words

Karl Marx is arguably the world’s most famous Jew. It would be near-impossible to find somebody who has a more Jewish genealogy than him. So, it’s quite perplexing that he’s continually accused of being an “anti-Semite.” What’s even more perplexing is his reputation as a penniless middle-class rogue, who was at war with the “bourgeois” elite of society, while living in squalor and surviving on scraps and handouts from his industrial capitalist friend, Friedrich Engels.

Even the most rudimentary investigation into Marx’s ancestry and personal political connections is enough to refute this flimsy narrative. It may sound unbelievable at first, but Karl Marx, the anti-Capitalist hobo, was descended from an elite Jewish lineage, and comfortably in bed with both the bourgeoisie and aristocracy — figuratively and literally.

This article provides a brief rundown of Marx’s genealogy, featuring a few of his most prominent paternal and maternal ancestors. Although an entire book could be dedicated to the subject, the following evidence should be sufficient in demonstrating that Marx was by no means a scruffy rebel against the bourgeois system but fully immersed within it.

The first of Marx’s numerous suspicious connections is his highly unconventional marriage to Jenny von Westphalen, a member of the Prussian nobility. It was frowned upon for women to marry younger men in 1800s Prussia, and almost unheard of for noblewomen to marry below their social class — let alone for a Prussian noblewoman to marry into a lower-class family of full-blooded Jews via a younger man. At this point in history, Anti-Semitism was extremely widespread, not just in Prussia, but throughout the entirety of Europe.

Jenny’s paternal grandmother was a Scottish noblewoman, who descended paternally from King James I of the House of Stuart, and maternally from the Dukes of Argyll, which was Scotland’s most powerful family for centuries. Jenny’s father, Ludwig von Westphalen, was the son of the chief of staff of the Prince of Brunswick. The prince was a renowned Prussian field marshal and Master Mason, who was once asked by the British to lead their forces during the American War of Independence. Simply put, the von Westphalen family was extremely well connected to the international European aristocracy.

So, why did Prussian Jenny the aristocrat marry Karl “Penniless Jewish Hobo” Marx? Well, Marx’s family was by no means impoverished, for starters. His father, Hirschel Levi, was a wealthy lawyer who owned numerous Moselle vineyards, while his mother, Henriette Pressburg, was the daughter of a wealthy and influential Jewish merchant family from Holland. They were both descended from long lineages of world-leading rabbis, merchants, and international financiers.

Karl Marx’s maternal grandfather, Isaac Heijmans Pressburg, was a wealthy financier, merchant, and rabbi, whose great-grandfather was the leader of the Jewish community in Hungary. Isaac’s wife, Nanette, came from the wealthy and powerful Barent-Cohen family, many of whom were rabbis, international financiers, and merchants. Her uncle was the influential banker and rabbi, Levy Barent-Cohen, a leading merchant of the City of London. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “nearly all the leading Jewish families in England are connected with him [via] distinguished marriages which his children contracted.” This included Karl Marx’s cousin, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the wealthiest man on earth and richest of the Rothschilds. Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Lionel Rothschild, led the campaign to establish the new state of Israel via the Balfour Declaration.

Marx’s maternal aunt, Sophia, married into the Philips family, who were powerful Jewish industrialists and merchants, renowned today for founding the Philips electronics company. Her husband, Lion, a rich tobacco merchant, financially supported Marx and Jenny throughout their lives. Lion’s merchant banker son, Frederik Philips, also funded Marx via “loans” (handouts), while his daughter, Antoinette, was involved with the Communist First International. It’s also worth mentioning that Jenny’s brother, Edgar von Westphalen, co-founded Marx’s Communist League.

Marx’s paternal ancestry consists of an unbroken chain of leading rabbis, dating back at least eight centuries. His paternal great-great-grandfather, rabbi Joshue Heschel Lwow, was so influential that “no important decision was taken in the Jewish world without his having first been consulted” [See: Karl Marx: His Life and Thought by David McLellan]. Marx’s great-(x9)-grandfather, Judah ben Eliezer ha-Levi Minz, was the leading rabbi of Italy and the author of multiple ‘takanot’ (major modifications to Jewish religious laws). Most importantly, Marx’s paternal great-(x8)-grandfather, rabbi Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen, was the direct ancestor of Europe’s leading rabbis, Talmudists, and heads of rabbinic courts, and a direct descendant of the House of David [See: The Unbroken Chain by Neil Rosenstein and this article]. Therefore, Marx himself was paternally descended from the House of David, which is pretty significant in Jewish culture, as they believe that their messiah will be a patrilineal descendant of the Davidic line.

So, in brief: Marx married into well-connected Prussian aristocracy that was descended from European kings, he was personally descended from a huge lineage of incredibly influential bankers and rabbis, was a cousin of the Rothschilds, and a descendant of the House of David. There was no hyperbole in this article’s opening claim that it would be near-impossible to find somebody who has a more Jewish genealogy than Marx.

Unfortunately, this genealogical investigation leaves us with more questions than answers: Why was Marx, the “arch-nemesis of capitalism,” bankrolled by leading industrialists and big capitalists, and why did they allow their children to join Marx’s Communist organizations? Moreover, all of this information is out in the open and relatively easy to find. So, why does the mainstream media, academics, historians, etc., always paint Marx out to be a starving hobo who was “rebelling against the bourgeois system,” when he was completely intertwined with it and his entire life depended upon it?

Was Communism a scam from the start? After all, “Real Communism” (the stateless society) is a functionally unimplementable utopian fantasy. Every “Communist” society in human history has devolved into a soulless, totalitarian, genocidal oligarchy, based on the most brutal enslavement of the lower classes and the total destruction of the human spirit.

Henrik and Lana cover the latest news in episode 111 of Flashback Friday.

Watch the show on: BitChute | Odysee | LBRY | VK | Rumble | Twitter | GabTV | Trovo | Dlive | Telegram | RedIceMembers

There is a podcast/audio version available of this show here

Sign up for a membership at redicemembers.com. Get full access to our extensive archives, watch or listen to all our shows. Stream or download over 1800 programs, including radio shows, videos, TV segments & our exclusive show Weekend Warrior. You get access to exclusive videos + all new videos are made available to members first.

Subscribe to us on BitChute: bitchute.com/redicetvFollow us on LBRY: lbry.tv/@redicetvFollow us on Odysee: Odysee.com/@redicetvFollow us on VK: vk.com/redicetvFollow us on Rumble: rumble.com/user/redicetvFollow us on Twitter: twitter.com/redicetvJoin our Telegram group: t.me/redicetvFollow us on Gab: gab.com/redicetvFollow us on Gab TV: tv.gab.com/channel/RedIceTVFollow us on Trovo: trovo.live/rediceFollow us on Dlive: dlive.tv/redicetvFollow us on Minds: minds.com/RedIceTVFollow us on Parler: parler.com/profile/redicetvFollow us on Floate.app: flote.app/redicetvSubscribe to our BrandNewTube channel: brandnewtube.com/@RedIceTVFind us on Link Tree: linktr.ee/redicetv

❤️ SHOW US SOME LOVE ❤️ HELP US GROW ⚡️

⭐️ Donate:Entropystream: entropystream.live/redicetvSubscribeStar: subscribestar.com/rediceVisit our donate page: redice.tv/donateSwish (Sweden): 076 815 68 01

Donate Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies:BTC: 1EgwUkPom9P9bknndRtoLfHmwZhbBFj9p2BCH: qr7zlntamr0af9nsl3pv99l6hpvd384h3y4wtrqd6aETH: 0x440Fd5DE5474865e1C1B4dBd467fF8D8c8d0A01FLTC: LWCiwV6XHTJiBTBhPSgNPBWqWjxA4DCc9TBAT: 0x440Fd5DE5474865e1C1B4dBd467fF8D8c8d0A01FLINK: 0x440Fd5DE5474865e1C1B4dBd467fF8D8c8d0A01FUNI: 0x440Fd5DE5474865e1C1B4dBd467fF8D8c8d0A01FXRP: rEb8TK3gBgk5auZkwc6sHnwrGVJH8DuaLhXRP Deposit Tag: 103245046NEO: AHyhZMq4vASf4Vjn3Qb4gws8MT9nymEVGWDASH: XttVspwkoCvUHYtutQxpyoMySCaXHHx1F8

Want to donate another crypto? Email us at redice@protonmail.com and we can provide wallet address for virtually any crypto.

Watch our content on the Brave Browser and support us with BAT (Basic Attention Coin)Get Brave via our affiliated link: brave.com/red091

Sign up for a Dlive account via our affiliate link: dlive.tv?ref=dlive-11213965

Thank you for your help! We can not continue without your help.

Get one of our t-shirts from lanasllama.com or redice.tv/storeSend mail or donations to Henrik Palmgren:784 S. Clearwater Loop Suite 8014Post Falls, ID 83854

Download

Dr. Duke and Patriotic Alternative leader Mark Collett of the U.K. discussed new legislation in the United Kingdom that is specifically a government response to the Patriotic Alternative, which studiously never violates any laws or advocates violence of any kind. After a study that singled out Mark and his deputy Laura Towler, new legislation is being put forward that would outlaw any criticism of the demographic change that will turn white Britons into a minority within the news few decades. 

Pro-rape demonstration in England

Please share this show widely. And please keep us on the air and on-line. Please visit our contribution page or send your contribution to:  P.O. Box 188, Mandeville, LA 70470 Thank you.  

Click here and look for the show dated 3-5-21 Our show is aired live at 11 AM Eastern Time (US) & is replayed at 4 PM Eastern Time.  Share this show widely. And please keep us on the air and on-line. 

Noam Chomsky and Ahdaf Soueif among hundreds of academics denouncing attempted “purge” of British academia.

 AbateHate.com —Iva and Lewis “Payton” Travis, 54 and 55, were found dead in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. 200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websites 34-year-old Kevin Buckley was taken into custody and confessed to killing the couple. The cause of death was not reported. The Travis’s had not been seen since February 14, 2021. Their deaths were reported February 22, 2021. Reports say the suspect lived with the victims and worked with Lewis many years. Excerpted from people.com ▼Buckley then allegedly confessed to killing the couple and revealed to detectives the location of their bodies.Authorities believe a disagreement between Buckley and the couple led to the killings. The 34-year-old was taken into custody and charged with two counts of first-degree murder.It is unclear how the couple died. The investigation remains ongoing. [La. Couple Who Vanished on Valentine’s Day Is Found Dead, and Roommate Allegedly Confessed, By Harriet Sokmensuer, people.com, February 22, 2021]Images sourceIva and Lewis “Payton” Travishttps://people.com/crime/louisiana-couple-vanished-valentines-day-slain-roommate-charged/  

AbateHate.com — Kayleigh Dunning’s, age 32, was murdered in Portsmouth, England reports say.  200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websitesMark Brandford, 49, was accused, tried, and convicted of the crime.Brandford allegedly killed Dunning by crushing her head shortly after proposing to her. Reports say the suspect sent obscene photos to the victim’s family and others to create the illusion that she was being stalked. Brandford was found guilty in a court of law in February, 2021. The crime occurred in 2019.  Excerpted from the-sun.com ▼ A JEALOUS lover has been found guilty of murdering his partner after he sent sex tapes and intimate photos of her to her family to “create the illusion” she had a crazed stalker.Evil Mark Brandford, 49, crushed Kayleigh Dunning’s skull in a “vicious” attack the same night he proposed to her, having devised a “cold and calculated” plan.In the year before he “brutally” murdered Miss Dunning, 32, he created the impression she had a mysterious enemy by pretending someone else had stolen her phone and using it to share explicit videos of the couple having sex.Brandford, a street sweeper, sent the images to the cleaner’s family and bosses as well as sending her anonymous threats including “I’m going to f**k you up big time”.[PURE EVIL Jealous lover GUILTY of murdering girlfriend after he sent sex tapes to her family to ‘create illusion’ she had stalker, by Sarah Grealish, the-sun.com, February 22, 2021]  Photos source:https://www.the-sun.com/news/2384600/jealous-lover-guilty-of-murdering-girlfriend-sex-tapes/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunusfacebook&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1614034734200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websites

By The Corbett Report
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics.
With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.

?
Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
Bioethics is the study of the moral issues arising from medicine, biology and the life sciences.
At first glance, bioethics might seem like just another branch of ethical philosophy where academics endlessly debate other academics about how many angels dance on the head of a pin in far-out, science fiction like scenarios.
PAUL ROOT WOLPE: Imagine what’s going to happen when we have a memory pill. First of all, you don’t have to raise your hand but let’s be honest: who here’s going to take it?
SOURCE: Memory Enhancing Drugs: Subject of “Arms” Race?
MICHAEL SANDEL: I’ve read of a sport—it’s a variant of polo that is I think played in Afghanistan if I’m not mistaken—where the people ride on horses. Is it horses or camels? I don’t know which. And they use a—it’s a dead goat or something—to, I don’t know, whack the polo ball or whatever it is. Now it’s a dead—I think it’s a goat. Maybe someone knows who studies sociology about this. So it’s not that the goat is experiencing pain. It’s dead already. And yet there is something grim about that practice, wouldn’t you agree? And yet it’s not that the interests of that goat are somehow not being considered. Let’s assume it was killed painlessly before the match began.
SOURCE: The Ethical Use of Biotechnology: Debating the Science of Perfecting Humans
MOLLY CROCKETT: What if I told you that a pill could change your judgement of what is right and what is wrong. Or what if I told you that your sense of justice could depend on what you had for breakfast this morning. You’re probably thinking by now this sounds like science fiction, right?
SOURCE: TEDxZurich – Molly Crockett – Drugs and morals
But the bioethicists cannot be dismissed so lightly. Their ideas are being used by governments to assert control over people’s bodies and to enforce that control in increasingly nightmarish ways.
ARCHELLE GEORGIOU: Lithium is a medication that in prescription doses treats mood disorders in people with bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness. And what these researchers found in Japan is that lithium is present in trace amounts in the normal water supply in some communities and in those communities they have a lower suicide rate. And so they’re really investigating whether trace amounts of lithium can just change the mood in a community enough to really in a positive way without having the bad effects of lithium to really affect the mood and decrease the suicide rate very interesting concept.
SOURCE: Lithium May Be Added To Our Water Supply
GATES: You’re raising tuitions at the University of California as rapidly as they [sic] can and so the access that used to be available to the middle class or whatever is just rapidly going away. That’s a trade-off society’s making because of very, very high medical costs and a lack of willingness to say, you know, “Is spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient—would it be better not to lay off those 10 teachers and to make that trade off in medical cost?” But that’s called the “death panel” and you’re not supposed to have that discussion.
SOURCE: Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers’ Jobs
Even a short time ago, talk about medicating the public through the water supply or enacting death panels for the elderly still seemed outlandish. But now that the world is being plunged into hysteria over the threat of pandemics and overburdened health care systems, these previously unspeakable topics are increasingly becoming part of the public debate.
What many do not know, however, is that the seemingly benign academic study of bioethics has its roots in the dark history of eugenics. With that knowledge, the dangers inherent in entrusting some of the most important discussions about the life, death and health of humanity in the hands of a select few become even more apparent.
This is a study of Bioethics and the New Eugenics.
You are tuned in to The Corbett Report.
On November 10, 2020, Joe Biden announced the members of a coronavirus task force that would advise his transition team on setting COVID-19-related policies for the Biden administration. That task force included Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
JOE BIDEN: So that’s why today I’ve named the COVID-19 Transition Advisory Board comprised of distinguished public health experts to help our transition team translate the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan into action. A blueprint that we can put in place as soon as Kamala and I are sworn into office on January 20th, 2021.
SOURCE: President-elect Biden Delivers Remarks on Coronavirus Pandemic
ANCHOR: We’ve learned that a doctor from our area is on the president-elect’s task force. Eyewitness News reporter Howard Monroe picks up the story.
THOMAS FARLEY: I know he’s a very bright, capable guy and i think that’s a great choice to represent doctors in general in addressing this epidemic.
HOWARD MONROE: Philadelphia health commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley this morning on Eyewitness News. He praised president-elect Joe Biden’s transition team for picking Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to join his coronavirus task force. He is the chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
SOURCE: UPenn Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel To Serve On President-Elect Biden’s Coronavirus Task Force
That announcement meant very little to the general public, who likely only know Emanuel as a talking head on tv panel discussions or as the brother of former Obama chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel. But for those who have followed Ezekiel Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist and his history of advocating controversial reforms of the American health care system, his appointment was an ominous sign of things to come.
He has argued that the Hippocratic Oath is obsolete and that it leads to doctors believing that they should do everything they can for their patients rather than letting them die to focus on higher priorities. He has argued that people should choose to die at age 75 to spare society the burden of looking after them in old age. As a health policy advisor to the Obama administration he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, which fellow Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitted was only passed thanks to the stupidity of the American public.
JONATHAN GRUBER: OK? Just like the people—transparency—lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass.
SOURCE: 3 Jonathan Gruber Videos: Americans “Too Stupid to Understand” Obamacare

During the course of the deliberations over Obamacare, the issue of “death panels” arose. Although the term “death panel” was immediately lampooned by government apologists in the media, the essence of the argument was one that Emanuel has long advocated: appointing a body or council to ration health care, effectively condemning those deemed unworthy of medical attention to death.
ROB MASS: When I first heard about you it was in the context of an article you wrote right around the time that the Affordable Care Act was under consideration. And the article was entitled “Principles for the Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.” I don’t know how many of you remember there was a lot of talk at the time about [how] this new Obamacare was going to create death panels. And he wrote an article which I thought should have been required reading for the entire country about how rationing medical care—you think that that’s going to start with with the Affordable Care Act? Medical care is rationed all the time and it must be rationed. Explain that.
EZEKIEL EMANUEL: So there are two kinds of “rationing,” you might say. One is absolute scarcity leading to rationing and that’s when we don’t simply don’t have enough of something and you have to choose between people. We do that with organs for transplantation. We don’t have enough. Some people will get it, other people won’t and, tragically, people will die. Similarly if we ever have a flu pandemic—not if but when we have a flu pandemic—we’re not going to have enough vaccine, we’re not going to have enough respirators, we’re not going to have enough hospital beds. We’re just going to have to choose between people.
SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel: Oncologist and Bioethicist
When the debate is framed as an impersonal imposition of economic restraint over the deployment of scarce resources, it is easy to forget the real nature of the idea that Emanuel is advocating. Excluded from these softball interviews is the implicit question of who gets to decide who is worthy of medical attention. Emanuel’s various proposals over the years, and those of his fellow bioethicists, have usually supposed that some government-appointed but somehow “independent” board of bioethicists, economists and other technocrats, should be entrusted with these life-and-death decisions.
If this idea seems familiar, it’s because it has a long and dark history that harkens back to the eugenicists who argued that only the “fittest” should be allowed to breed, and anyone deemed “unfit” by the government-appointed boards—presided over by the eugenicists—should be sterilized, or, in extreme cases, put to death.
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW: [. . .] But there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. Not in any unkind or personal spirit, but it must be evident to all of you — you must all know half a dozen people, at least—who are no use in this world. Who are more trouble than they are worth. And I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board, just as he might come before the income tax commissioner, and, say, every five years, or every seven years, just put him there, and say: “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”
SOURCE: George Bernard Shaw talking about capital punishment
This is the exact same talk of “Life Unworthy of Life” that was employed in Nazi Germany as justification for their Aktion T4 program, which resulted in over 70,000 children, senior citizens and psychiatric patients being murdered by the Nazi regime.
In 2009, author and researcher Anton Chaitkin confronted Ezekiel Emanuel about this genocidal idea.
MODERATOR: So we’ll do the same format. It’ll be three minutes and then time for questions. We’ll start with Mr. Chaitkin.
ANTON CHAITKIN: [My name is] Anton Chaitkin. I’m a historian and the history editor for Executive Intelligence Review.
President Obama has put in place a reform apparatus reviving the euthanasia of Hitler Germany in 1939 that began the genocide there. The apparatus here is to deny medical care to elderly, chronically ill and poor people and thus save, as the president says, two to three trillion dollars by taking lives considered “not worthy to be lived” as the Nazi doctors said.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and other avowed cost-cutters on this panel also lead a propaganda movement for euthanasia headquartered at the Hastings Center, of which Dr. Emanuel is a fellow. They shape public opinion and the medical profession to accept a death culture, such as the Washington state law passed in November to let physicians help kill patients whose medical care is now rapidly being withdrawn in the universal health disaster. Dr. Emmanuel’s movement for bioethics and euthanasia and this council’s purpose directly continue the eugenics movement that organized Hitler’s killing of patients and then other costly and supposedly “unworthy” people.
Dr. Emanuel wrote last October 12 that a crisis, war and financial collapse would get the frightened public to accept the program. Hitler told Dr. Brandt in 1935 that the euthanasia program would have to wait until the war began to get the public to go along. Dr. Emanuel wrote last year that the hippocratic oath should be junked; doctors should no longer just serve the needs of the patient. Hoche and Binding, the German eugenicists, exactly said the same thing to start the killing.
You on the council are drawing up the procedures to be used to deny care which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think perhaps the backing of powerful men, financiers, will shield you from accountability, but you are now in the spotlight.
Disband this council and reverse the whole course of this nazi revival now.
SOURCE: Obama’s Genocidal Death Panel Warned by Tony Chaitkin
It should come as no surprise, then, that Emanuel emerged last year as the lead author of a New England Journal of Medicine article advocating for rationing COVID-19 care that was later adopted by the Canadian Medical Association. The paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” was written by Emanuel and a team of prominent bioethicists and discusses “the need to ration medical equipment and interventions” during a pandemic emergency.
Their recommendations include removing treatment from patients who are elderly and/or less likely to survive, as these people divert scarce medical resources from younger patients or from those with more promising prognoses. Although the authors refrain from using the term, the necessity of setting up a “death panel” to determine who should or should not receive treatment is implicit in the proposal itself.
In normal times, this would have been just another scholarly discussion of a theoretical situation. But these are not normal times. As Canadian researcher and medical writer Rosemary Frei documented at the time, the declared COVID crisis meant the paper quickly went from abstract proposal to concrete reality.
JAMES CORBETT: Let’s get back to that question about hospital care rationing, which is such an important part of this story. And it’s one of those things that when you read it at a surface level at first glance sounds reasonable enough, but the more that you look into it I think it becomes more horrifying.
And you quote, for example, specifically a March 23rd paper, “Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19,” which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which calls for “maximizing the number of patients that survived treatment with a reasonable life expectancy.” Which, again, I would say sounds reasonable at first glance. Yes, of course we want to maximize the number of patients that survive. What’s wrong with that?
So what can you tell us about this paper and the precedent that it’s setting here.
ROSEMARY FREI: Well it’s all of a sudden changing the rules in terms of saying, “Well, the most important thing is that it’s the older people get a lower place in terms of triaging.”
And I point out in my article, also, that Canadians have a lot of experience with SARS because we had that—there were a significant number of deaths in Ontario because of it. And there were people from Toronto who had direct experience with SARS—which of course is (ostensibly, at least) a cousin with the novel coronavirus—who wrote triaging guidelines, or at least an ethical framework for how to triage during a pandemic—this was in 2006—they didn’t mention age at all. And here we are 14 years later, every single set of guidelines, including this really important New England Journal of Medicine paper say, “Well, age is an important criterion.” And this is what’s interesting.
So this paper is really important because—and also the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the official organ, I would say, of the American Medical Association says the same thing: it’s age. So they’re all stepping in line and then the Canadian Medical Association said, “Oh, we don’t have time to put our own guidelines together so we’ll just use this one from the New England Journal of Medicine.” To me, that’s astonishing.
When I was a medical writer and journalist, I did some work helping various—one particular organization: the Canadian Thoracic Society, which does, you know, chest infections and stuff. I helped them put together guidelines. There’s a whole big set of organizations for every single specialty for creating guidelines. Yet, “Oh!
We don’t have time to put together this—” And also, I mean Canada had a lot of experience with SARS, so we had a lot of this background. Yet, “Oh, we can’t do so it!” So they gave totally—they, quote, they said we have to go with the recommendations from the New England Journal of Medicine.
SOURCE: How the High Death Rate in Care Homes Was Created on Purpose
That bioethicists like Emanuel are writing papers that are changing the rules for rationing health care in the midst of a generated crisis should hardly be surprising for someone whose brother infamously remarked that you should never let a good crisis go to waste.
RAHM EMANUEL: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
SOURCE: Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis

But from a broader perspective, it is not at all surprising that the concept of “death panels” has been effectively smuggled in through the back door by the bioethicists.
In fact, when you start documenting the history of bioethics, you discover that this is exactly what this field of study is meant to do: Frame the debate about hot button issues so that eugenicist ideals and values can be mainstreamed in society and enacted in law. From abortion to euthanasia, there isn’t a debate in the medical field that wasn’t preceded by some bioethicist or bioethics institute preparing the public for a massive change in mores, values and laws.
That research into the history of bioethics leads one to the doorstep of the Hastings Center, a nonprofit research center that, according to its website, “was important in establishing the field of bioethics.” The founding director of the Hastings Center, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a chairman of the American Eugenics Society from 1969 to 1975. Meanwhile, Hastings cofounder Daniel Callahan—who has admitted to relying on Rockefeller Population Council and UN Population Fund money in the early days of the center’s work—served as a director of the American Eugenics Society (rebranded as The Society for the Study of Social Biology) from 1987 to 1992.
As previous Corbett Report guest Anton Chaitkin has extensively documented, there is a line of historical continuity connecting the promotion of eugenics in America by the Rockefeller family in the early 20th century to the creation of the Hastings Center in the late 20th century. The Center, Chaitkin points out, was fostered by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council as a front for pushing the eugenics agenda—including abortion, euthanasia and the creation of death panels—under the guise of “bioethics.”
CHAITKIN: Eugenics practices that we saw and discussions and preparations for eugenics, which were going on in the United States in the early 1920s and earlier going back to the late 19th century—those discussions were carried over—and the same discussions and preparations in England—were carried over into Nazi Germany. After the war—after World War II—people who had participated in these movements wanted to keep the eugenics idea alive and with the backing of particularly the Rockefeller Foundation—which had backed Nazi eugenics before World War II in Europe—they set up a population control movement that overlapped with the Eugenics Society and with eugenics ideas. And out of that combination of eugenics and population control was born the institutes and programs which are today at the heart of what’s called “bioethics,” where you decide—so, supposedly decide—ethical questions in a medical practice based on supposedly limited resources.
So it’s a completely phony and morally disgusting field in general. It’s ill-born at the root of it and it’s a practice which has never confronted—in the medical community and in the academic community that has this as part of its, you know, its practice—they’ve never confronted the basis for the existence of this “bioethics.”
SOURCE: Anton Chaitkin on the Eugenics / Euthanasia Agenda
The history of bioethics connects the Rockefeller funding behind the first wave of American eugenics, the Rockefeller funding behind the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes and the Nazi-era German eugenics program, and the Rockefeller funding behind the Population Council, the Hastings Center and other centres for post-war “crypto-eugenics” research. As a result, it is perhaps not surprising to find that many of the most well-known and most controversial bioethicists working today are associated with the Hastings Center.
Take Ezekiel Emanuel himself. In addition to being a senior fellow at the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress—which was accused in a 2013 expose from The Nation of maintaining “a revolving door” with the Obama administration and running a pay-for-play operation for various industry lobbyists—Emanuel is also a Hastings Center fellow. In fact, Emanuel’s career as a bioethicist was kickstarted by a November 1996 article in The Hastings Center Report, which—after praising Daniel Callahan’s attempts to inject a debate about the goals of medicine into the discussion of health care—highlighted a point on which both liberals and communitarians can agree: “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” For “an obvious example” of this principle in action, Emanuel then cites “not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
Just last year, The Hastings Center hosted an online discussion about “What Values Should Guide Us” when considering COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the United States, during which Emanuel opined that big tech was not doing enough to share data about users’ movements with governments and researchers:
EMANUEL: I have to say I’ve actually found Big Tech totally unhelpful so far in this. It’s hard for me to see that they’ve done something really, really helpful in this regard when it comes to COVID-19. They have lots of capacity. Believe me: Facebook already knows who you interact with on a regular basis; how close you’ve gotten to them; when you leave your house; which stores you go into. Google does the same. And they have not used this data. Maybe they’re afraid that people are going to be all upset, but they haven’t even been willing to give it to someone else to use in an effective manner. And I think either they’re going to become irrelevant in this process or they’re going to have to step up and actually be contributory to solving this problem.
SOURCE: Re-Opening the Nation: What Values Should Guide Us?
Or take Hastings Center fellow and University of Wisconsin-Madison bioethics professor Norman Fost, who, in addition to questioning whether it is “important that organ donors be dead” in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, made the case for involuntary sterilization—the hallmark of the now universally denounced American eugenics program—at a 2013 panel discussion on “Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics.”
NORMAN FOST: On the sterilization thing, if his sexual behavior can be attenuated so that he’s not a risk of impregnating anybody that would be the best thing. But I don’t think we should rule out sterilization as being in his interest also, as well as potential victims of his sexual assault.
I think sterilization has a bad reputation in America because of the eugenic sterilization of a hundred thousand or more people with developmental disabilities, most of them inappropriate. But the overreaction to that . . . and Wisconsin leads the way at overreacting to that. We have a Supreme Court decision that says you can never sterilize a minor until the legislature gives us permission to do it and they never will and that’s not in the interest of a lot of kids with developmental disabilities for whom procreation would be a disaster—that is pregnancy or inflicting a pregnancy.
So if it’s the case that this fella is never going to be capable of being a parent . . . and I can’t tell quite that from the limited history here and it may not be the case—but I just want to say that the country’s overreaction to sterilization—like it’s wrong, it’s always terrible to involuntarily sterilized somebody—is not true and it ought to be at least on the table as something that might be in his interest.
SOURCE: A Conversation About Challenging Cases in Clinical Ethics
But these discussions are not limited to the ranks of the Hastings Center.
Take Joseph Fletcher. Dubbed a pioneer in the field of biomedical ethics by both his critics and his apologists, Fletcher was the first professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia and co-founded the Program in Biology and Society there. In addition to his position as president of the Euthanasia Society of America and his work helping to establish the Planned Parenthood Federation, Fletcher was also a member of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1968 article in defense of killing babies with Down’s syndrome “or other kind[s] of idiot[s],” Fletcher wrote:

“The sanctity (what makes it precious) is not in life itself, intrinsically; it is only extrinsic and bonum per accident, ex casu – according to the situation. Compared to some things, the taking of life is a small evil and compared to some things, the loss of life is a small evil. Death is not always an enemy; it can sometimes be a friend and servant.”

Or take Peter Singer. If there is any bioethicist in the world today whose name is known to the general public it is Peter Singer, famed for his animal liberation advocacy. Less well known to the public, however, are his arguments in favor of infanticide, including the notion that there is no relevant difference between abortion and the killing of “severely disabled infants,” positions which have driven his critics to call him “Son of Fletcher.”
Although Singer is extremely careful to frame his argument for infanticide using the least controversial positions when speaking to the public. . . .
PETER SINGER: . . . So we said, “Look, the difficult decision is whether you want this infant to live or not.” That should be a decision for the parents and doctors to make on the basis of the fullest possible information about what the condition is. But once you’ve made that decision it should be permissible to make sure that the baby dies swiftly and humanely, if that’s your decision. If your decision is that it’s better that the child should not live, it should be possible to ensure that the child dies swiftly and humanely.
And so that’s what we proposed. Now, that’s been picked up by a variety of opponents, both pro-life movement people and people in the militant disability movement—which incidentally didn’t really exist at the time we first wrote about this issue. And they’ve taken us as, you know, the stalking horse—the bogeyman, if you like—because we’re up front in saying that we think this is how we should treat these infants.
SOURCE: The Case for Allowing Euthanasia of Severely Handicapped Infants 
. . . his actual writings contain much bolder assertions that would be sure to shock the sensibilities of the average person if they were plainly stated. In Practical Ethics, for example, intended as a text for an introductory ethics course, Singer dispenses with arguments about severe handicaps and birth defects and talks more broadly about whether it is fundamentally immoral to kill a newborn baby, noting that “a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the principle of respect for autonomy.”
After conceding that “It would, of course, be difficult to say at what age children begin to see themselves as distinct entities existing over time”—noting that “Even when we talk with two or three year old children it is usually very difficult to elicit any coherent conception of death”—we could provide an “ample safety margin” for such concerns by deciding that “a full legal right to life comes into force not at birth, but only a short time after birth—perhaps a month.”
Singer is by no means alone in his profession in discussing this subject. In fact, he’s just part of a long line of bioethicists musing about exactly where to draw the line when discussing infanticide.
Take Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, two bioethicists working in Australia who published a paper titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012. In that paper, they explicitly defend the practice of infanticide on moral grounds, claiming that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus,” and thus “the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.” Lest they be mistaken for forwarding the same old argument on killing severely handicapped newborn babies that bioethicists have been making for decades, the two are careful to add that their proposal includes “cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.”
Unlike so many other academic papers on this subject, however, this one was picked up and widely circulated in the popular press, with even establishment media outlets like The Guardian insisting that “Infanticide is repellent. Feeling that way doesn’t make you Glenn Beck.”
Seemingly taken aback by the strong negative reaction to a scholarly article about the moral permissibility of killing babies, the authors of the article responded by accusing the general public of being too ignorant to understand the complex arguments made in the highly academic field of bioethics:
When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.
“Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.
Whatever else may be said about the researchers’ response, this was not a dishonest defense of their work. Julian Savulescu, the editor of The Journal of Medical Ethics that published the article, did point out in his own defense of the publication that the scholarly debate about when it is permissible to kill babies goes back to at least the 1960s, when Francis Crick—the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and an avowed eugenicist who proposed that governments should prevent the poor and undesirable from breeding by requiring government-issued licenses for the privilege of having a baby—proposed that children should only be allowed to live if, after birth, they are found to have met certain genetic criteria.
Indeed, the pages of the medical ethics journals are filled with just such debates. From Dan Brock’s article on “Voluntary Active Euthanasia,” published in The Hastings Center Report in 1992,  to John Hardwig’s 1997 article in the pages of The Hastings Center Report asking “Is There A Duty to Die?” to Hastings Center Deputy Director Nancy Berlinger’s 2008 pronouncement that “Allowing parents to practice conscientious objection by opting out of vaccinating their children is troubling in several ways,” these ethics professors toiling in a hitherto unknown and unremarked corner of academia are having a greater and greater effect in steering the policies that literally mean the difference between life and death for people around the world.
In his prescient 1988 article on “The Return of Eugenics,” Richard J. Neuhaus observed:
Thousands of medical ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable until it is finally established as the unexceptionable. Those who pause too long to ponder troubling questions along the way are likely to be told that “the profession has already passed that point.” In truth, the profession is usually huffing and puffing to catch up with what is already being done without its moral blessing.
Indeed, bioethicists are not, generally speaking, trained doctors, researchers or medical workers. As academics, they are forced to take the word of doctors and researchers at face value. But which doctors? Whose research? Inevitably, it will be that of the WHO, the AMA and other organizations whose work—as even those within its ranks admit—is not solely dictated by medical need, but by the arbitrary whims of the organizations’ billionaire backers.
We are feeling the effects of this now, when these bioethics professors are held up as gurus who can not only provide medical advice, but actually lecture the public on which medical interventions they are morally obligated to undergo regardless of their own feelings about bodily autonomy.
*CLIP (0m35s-1m27s)
SOURCE: Emanuel: Wearing a mask should be as necessary as wearing a seatbelt
JULIAN SAVULESCU: It’s important to recognize that mandatory vaccination would not be anything new. There are many mandatory policies, other coercive policies—taxes are a form of coercion. Seatbelts were originally voluntary and they were made mandatory because they both reduce the risk of death to the wearer by 50% and also to other occupants in the car. But importantly some people do die of seat belt injuries, but the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
Some countries in the world already have mandatory vaccination policies. In Australia the “no jab, no pay” policy involves withholding child care benefits if the child isn’t vaccinated. In Italy there are fines. And in the US children can’t attend school unless they’re vaccinated. All of these policies have increased vaccination rates and have been implementable.
SOURCE: “Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination: the arguments for and against”: Julian Savulescu & Sam Vanderslott
KERRY BOWMAN: Some form of vaccination passport is almost inevitable. With travel it’s virtually a given. And you look at countries like Israel is now introducing the green card. And all this is going on the assumption that people that have been vaccinated are not going to be able to spread the viruses easily, meaning they can’t transmit it and it’s kind of looking like my read on the science is it’s looking like that is the case with most of the vaccines. So that would be the question.
Now some people say we absolutely can’t do it, like, it’s just not fair in a democratic society because there’s people that refuse—don’t want vaccines—and there’s people that can’t have vaccines. But here’s the other side of the argument: Is it really fair to the Canadians that have been locked down for a year when they are vaccinated—they’re no longer a risk to other people—is it really fair to continue to limit their freedom?
So you’ve kind of got those two sides of it colliding.
SOURCE: ‘Vaccination passports’ a near certainty says bio-ethicist | COVID-19 in Canada
From its inception, the field of bioethics has taken its moral cue from the card-carrying eugenicists who founded its core institutions. For these academicians of the eugenics philosophy, the key moral questions raised by modern medical advances are always utilitarian in nature: What is the value that forced vaccination or compulsory sterilization brings to a community? Will putting lithium in the water supply lead to a happier society? Does a family’s relief at killing their newborn baby outweigh that baby’s momentary discomfort as it is murdered?
Implicit in this line of thinking are all of the embedded assumptions about what defines “value” and “happiness” and “relief” and how these abstract ideas are measured and compared. The fundamental utilitarian assumption that the individual’s worth can or should be measured against some arbitrarily defined collective good, meanwhile, is rarely (if ever) considered.
The average person, however—largely unaware that these types of questions are even being asked (let alone answered) by bioethics professors in obscure academic journals—may literally perish for their lack of knowledge about these discussions.
All things being equal, these types of ideas would likely be treated as they always have been: as a meaningless parlor game played by ivory tower academics with no power to enforce their crazy ideas. All things, however, are not equal.
Perhaps taking a page from the notebook of his brother, Rahm, about the utility of crisis in effecting societal change, Ezekiel Emanuel declared in 2011 that “we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest.” He didn’t add “pandemic” to that list of excuses, but he didn’t have to. As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable now that they have been told that there is a crisis taking place.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. For the first time, the eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are on the verge of gaining real power. And the public is still largely unaware of the discussions that these academics have been engaged in for decades.
At the very least, Bill Gates can relax now: We can finally have the discussion on death panels.
Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com. Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and BitChute, and support him on Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Telegram, SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab and Ruqqus.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
Bioethics and the New Eugenics

If you so much as look at a non-White and they don’t like it, you can be fired by your employer for “racial discrimination” and no group will come to your aid.

Latest political bullshit and current events 

Farren Shoaf  Host of The Alternative Media
has been involved in the End The Fed, Marches against Monsanto,We Are
Change and several various 911 Truth Movements. His favorite quotes are
“I am a conspiracy factualist and everyone else is a reality theorist”
and also”Give me Liberty or Let’s give you Death. Farren
discusses any and all

This is part of our continuing series of accounts by readers of how they shed the illusions of liberalism and became race realists.
I didn’t take the red pill in one gulp. It came in the form of a slow-drip IV over decades. It was an antibiotic that eventually finished off a nasty infection of racial guilt I had contracted as a young teen.
I grew up in rural Michigan. I had no contact with blacks. Everyone around me was white. Most of them had a low opinion of blacks, and some of their mean-spirited comments about non-whites struck me as terribly inhumane and cruel. That impression was strengthened by what I saw on TV — George Wallace blocking the doors of the University of Alabama, Bull Connor’s police dogs and firehoses, etc. When I attended college, I acquired the vocabulary to express my moral outrage and I tried to expiate my white guilt. “Racism,” I was convinced, was America’s original sin.
But the more experiences I had with blacks, the less guilt I felt. Listing them all could fill a book, but one of the biggest was the racial unrest of the 1960s. In July of 1967, I was in downtown Detroit when the riot broke out, the worst one in America since the draft riots in New York City during the Civil War. I sat in a car on Livernois Avenue watching blacks looting stores while helpless white cops looked on. I’ll never forget the happy, almost joyful looks on the faces of the looters — not the looks of beaten down, desperate people striking a blow at their oppressors. These were folks on a Sunday romp: Smash some windows, load up on free stuff, and give the finger to the cops. Rinse and repeat. And the “free stuff” they were taking weren’t the sorts of goods poor, desperate, hungry people would be after — fruits, vegetables, milk, etc. The looters were after big ticket items: television sets, stereos, fashionable clothing, and lots of liquor. For us white people, it was a riot. For them, it was party time on whitey’s tab.
The Kerner Commission Report came out a year later blaming the riots plaguing American cities such as Detroit on poverty and institutional racism. Blacks had literally run riot on the white man and now the white man was being blamed for it. I remember reading that report shortly after it appeared. I wondered if any of the authors had had direct experience with any of the rioters, looters, and thugs. Did the people behind the report know that during the riots, black criminals had shot at the white firemen trying to keep blacks from burning down their own neighborhoods? In the 50 years since, America has turned itself inside out trying to “eliminate racism,” yet blacks still riot and loot.
After seeing that riot first-hand, I started noticing how often whites were on the losing side of race relations in America: the Rodney King riots, the OJ Simpson trial, forced bussing, affirmative action, diversity training, etc. Everywhere I looked, raging black incivility and incompetence was only ever met with more white guilt and feckless palliatives. I spent decades in academia watching the phenomenal growth of the “diversity industry,” a confidence game built on guilt-leveraging of “racism.” Generic “racism” eventually turned ragged and worn from overuse. Hence the multiplier device: “institutional racism,” “structural racism,” “covert racism,” “environmental racism,” “economic racism,” “hipster racism” (for those inclined toward the exotic), and more to follow.
“Systemic racism,” now tops the hierarchy of “racisms.” It’s a worldview that sees bigotry absolutely everywhere in American society — which means that there are endless opportunities for people to carve out niches in the “anti-racism business.” The practice of “anti-racism” in America resembles a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole.” One of these pesky little critters pops up and you whack him down. Another immediately pops up somewhere else. A “diversity professional,” you might say, has a full-time job of playing whack-a-mole. It’s good work, if you can get it.
My white guilt and belief in racial equality are long gone. I’ve seen enough to know for sure that the races are different, and that the attempts to make them equal are largely scams. And the few honest egalitarians out there are doomed to failure, no matter how noble their intentions may be. I’m old. I have grandchildren, and I fear for their future. I hope young white adults take the red pill before it’s too late, before America starts to become another Zimbabwe.
The post I’m an Academic — and a Race Realist appeared first on American Renaissance.

The White House has been reaching out to social media companies including Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc’s Google about clamping down on COVID misinformation.

AbateHate.com — Katherine Elizabeth Bruno, age 34, was fatally shot in North Carolina.200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websites Charged with one count of murder is Dominique Lamont Arrington, 32.The incident occurred February 16, 2021. Newsobserver.com reports that Arrington had previously been convicted of murder when he was 16 years old. “He spent six and half years in prison, plus almost two years in jail awaiting trial,” the report said.  Excerpted from newsobserver.com ▼A Durham man convicted of murder as a teen has been charged with murder again in the fatal shooting of a woman this week just off of Chapel Hill Road.Officers responded around 8:15 a.m. Tuesday to a home on Huron Street, where they found Katherine Bruno, 34, who had been shot; she was pronounced dead at the scene.[He killed a man as a teen. Now he’s charged with fatally shooting a woman in Durham, By Ashad Hajela, newsobserver.com, February 17, 2021]Image sources: https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/durham-man-faces-murder-charge-in-womans-shooting-death/http://gunmemorial.org/2021/02/16/katherine-elizabeth-bruno

Israel. America’s greatest ally. Right? Not so fast. According to a report by Breaking Defense, Israel refused a recent request by the American government to inspect a new port in the city of Haifa that China helped build. SIPG, a Chinese company, will operate this port for the next 25 years. This move has opened up discussions about Israel’s […]

Pretty much the whole proof of the “holocaust” and other supposed German atrocities is a collection of jewish eye witness testimony and the confessions of Germans who were brutally tortured.

According to Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), there were 34 cases reported where pregnant women suffered from spontaneous miscarriages or stillbirths post COVID-19 vaccination in the USA, and 8 cases in the UK. Such adverse events that occur after vaccination are reported by VAERS. It is a passive reporting system that facilitates people to […]

AbateHate.com —Herbert “Noah” Fischbach, age 47, and Veronica Billiot, age 59, fatally shot in New Orleans, Louisiana.200 latest news reports from 100 top conservative websites Also fatally shot was 27-year-old Joshua Jamal Williams. Williams reported shot Fischbach after the victim instructed him to unload his gun. Williams was at a gun store and shooting range where Fischbach worked when the incident occurred. Reports say Williams first fired a warning shot into the store’s ceiling before shooting Fischbach. Other patrons at the site returned fire killing Williams. Billiot was killed in the crossfire. The incidents occurred February 20, 2021. Excerpted from dailymail.co.uk ▼ The 27-year-old New Orleans man who opened fire inside a Louisiana gun store Saturday afternoon before being shot dead has been pictured.Three people including alleged shooter Joshua Jamal Williams were killed after he walked into Jefferson Gun Outlet – a store and indoor shooting range – in Metairie with his brother at around 3pm, carrying a pistol with an extended magazine unholstered.  When staff approached him to ask him to unload his weapon, Williams fired off a warning shot and then fatally shot 47-year-old store clerk Noah Fischbach, police sources told NOLA.com.Several armed patrons inside the gun outlet then began exchanging gunfire with Williams.[PICTURED: Man, 27, who shot dead New Orleans gun store clerk, 47, when he was asked to unload his weapon – before being killed by customers in gunfight that left woman dead, By Luke Kenton, Dailymail.com, February 21, 2021] Image sources:Joshua Jamal Williams https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283993/Man-27-started-battle-gun-shop-killing-clerk-47-asked-unload-pistol.html  Herbert “Noah” Fischbach https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_3cdc6e50-745d-11eb-a315-1335babe707d.html  Veronica Billiothttps://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_a1818e4c-7478-11eb-9af9-b7ce794b2ec1.html    

The anti-White hatred incited by the jewish MSM is causing untold physical and emotional damage to White people around the world.

One of the strange things about living through a particular time is that things that define that age in the moment just seem to pop up from nothing. For example, one day two men getting married is a punchline to a joke. The next day you are in human resources signing your termination papers for mocking homosexual marriage. One day men in drag are something you recall your parents laughing at and the next day your kid’s teacher is in a frock demanding you call him “they” for some reason.
The reason these things feel like they have sprung from nowhere is most people are normal, living normal lives. They are too busy living those normal lives to look into who is plotting what over in the shadows of the managerial class. Most of us live outside the world of elite opinion, so we cannot see it evolving and embracing the latest boutique opinions to wear around like amulets. By the time we notice, the finished product has been imposed onto the culture.
That is what’s useful about looking into the people profiting from the new moral panic of whiteness and its related items, like white supremacy. Russ Travers is Mumbly Joe’s new antiwhite crusader. Before he was an antiwhite crusader, he was an anti-Muslim crusader in the now largely defunct War on Terror™. He got canned last spring as the Trump administration tried to purge these people from the system. He claims it was due to his demand to go after whites, instead of Muslims.
Of course, what was really going on is this guy was getting off the anti-Muslim bus and jumping on the anti-white bus. He saw that the former was a dying racket, but the former offered an ambitious career man like him many new opportunities. Rather than try his luck in the dreaded private sector, which is worse than death, he quickly became an evangelist against white supremacist terror. Again, yesterday the great threat was Islam and today the great threat is you. Just like that.
In reality, this antiwhite pogrom was in the works for years. You see that in the resume of Robin DiAngelo, the authoress of the book White Fragility. She started out trying to grift on the feminism stuff, but that was an overserved market, so she tried getting into the diversity rackets, but then she stumbled into the gold mine. She could be a life coach to guilty white liberals, in major corporations and government, helping them confront their white privilege and implicit racism.
Does Mx DiAngelo believe the nonsense she promotes? Probably not. Conmen believe in one thing. “You can’t cheat an honest man; never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.” What she believes does not matter. It is what the chumps she is fleecing believe that matters. The managerial class, which has the money and power, believes white people are the problem, so grifters like Robin DiAngelo are there to tell them they are right. Russ Travers will protect them.
This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. I am now on Deezer, for our European haters and Stitcher for the weirdos. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is like a tea, but it has a milder flavor. It’s hot here in Lagos, so I’ve been drinking it cold. It is a great summer beverage.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link.   If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.

This Week’s Show
Contents

00:00: Opening
02:00: White Nationalism (Link)
22:00: White Privilege (Link) (Link)
37:00: White Supremacy (Link) (Link)
52:00: White Fragility (Link)

Direct Download, The iTunes, Google Play, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed, Amazon
Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

by Douglas Mercer

ONE OF THE great ironies is that in the 1920s when Jews were discriminated against by the Ivy League schools, they cried out sharply in pain. It was another Shoah, they said; and the Shoah hadn’t even happened yet. Not that it ever did.

But now Jews lead the charge to discriminate…

After moving to Philadelphia in 1982, I quickly discovered McGlinchey’s, home of the 50-cent draft of Rolling Rock, and Bacchanal, where there were poetry readings on Mondays. When I had a few extra bucks, I also treated myself to a chopped liver sandwich at the original Latimer Deli, or a meatloaf and mashed potato dinner…