If you’ve had an interview recently for a skilled job, either remote or in an office, you may have been asked questions about diversity. If you’ve ever been trained for giving interviews, you may know that, in many countries, it’s considered unethical to ask a potential employee certain questions. Asking about a jobseeker’s medical history, marital status, children or anything else that could be potentially discriminatory, is usually off limits (unless the candidate brings up any of these topics first). The topic of diversity is a way around these ethical limitations. It’s a loaded idea that is never used to promote diversity of thought. Instead, it’s a weasel word, Orwellian newspeak, to pry into the private political views of a potential candidate and ensure they align ideologically with the politics of the company.
Have those who have fought in the militaries of oppressive governments known the evil they supported, or are they only judged that way if their battle ends up on the wrong side of history? Many soldiers likely believed in their nation and its leader’s message. In just the past month, I had been blown away by the peace and love shown by the Canadian protestors in trying to defend their human rights. I felt sick to my stomach as I watched their House of Commons pass the resolution for emergency measures. Although Trudeau relented and withdrew his request, it doesn’t change the fact that the Canadian legislators in the house were willing to enact a tyrannical emergency powers act against peaceful protestors.
As the situation in Russia and Ukraine unfolds, we are about to see nations form new lines of alliances, based on their core ideologies. Although the events may seem unrelated, I believe many policies we’ve seen internationally are a direct result of overreaching organizations such as The World Economic Forum, The International Monetary Fund, The World Health Organization, BlackRock and others. The real question people should be asking, regarding the Russian conflict, is this: Are Putin’s actions a direct stand against globalism and the policies of the globalist leaders, or are all his actions intentional to help further the collapse of world economies?
A massive trucker convoy has descended onto Ottawa, the capital of Canada. If you haven’t heard of it, I’m not surprised. It hasn’t been covered by any international main stream media outlets, with searches on their websites returning irrelevant results from years ago. The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has labeled the convoy a “fringe minority.” This minority has gridlocked the streets of the capitol, lined the sides of highways, and has led to what many on the Internet have dubbed The Honkening. They gathered to stand for the rights of all Canadians against the nation’s authoritarian curfews and lockdown measures. It is an amazing movement, and should give people of all nations a boost of hope for the new year.
In 1997, the Southern Baptist Church announced a boycott of Disney to protest the company’s challenges to traditional family values. It could be viewed as symbolic, a failure or both. Many Christians did not stop watching those adorable animated tales, at least not until decades later when Carrie Fisher became Marry Poppins, Mark Hamill drank green milk, and Gina Carano was fired for a political post on social media. In 1955, after the arrest of Rosa Parks, E. D. Nixon called for a one-day bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama. That one day boycott continued for 11 months. It was one of the few boycotts that fueled a movement which lasted generations. But were those who participated really voting with their dollars? It wasn’t their choice in purchases that was impactful, but the cultural and legal shift brought about by their collective actions.
On January 7th, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments, regarding the mandates for testing or vaccination, that Biden is attempting to impose via OSHA regulation. Many Americans listened closely to the arguments. Many listeners were also horrified at how Supreme Court justices made arguments for facts not in the records, that were blatantly and horrifically false. The Supreme Court is often seen as a sacred institution, empowered with determining what is, and is not, constitutional law. On January 7th, many Americas discovered that the judges on the Supreme Court are fallible individuals, subject to the same prejudices as anyone else. Soon, these nine individuals will make the most important decisions in the history of the United States.
Earlier this month, I posted a link to an article I wrote, titled Burning Witches, on LinkedIn. When I checked to see if there were any comments, the post was gone. I was given no notification, and received no e-mails, indicating that the post had been removed. I’ve previously written about how Facebook is hostile to smaller platforms. It seems like LinkedIn is also participating in the new era of corporate censorship, but what makes their actions more sinister is that they do so without providing their users any notifications of post removal.
You are in The Crucible. Someone in your town has been accused of witchcraft. Do you defend the witch, or walk away from those screaming for fire and blood? Would you burn the witch? Would you turn on your friend if they were disloyal to the Soviet empire? Would you turn in your neighbor for hiding Jews? Those who conform instead of standing up for deep moral convictions, are the ones who survive. In every authoritarian state, genocide, or episode of mass-hysteria, those who stand to defend others are often the first to be imprisoned, arrested or killed. Figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther (both of them) and others, are the outliers that give us hope. Yet, the tragic reality is that those who either stay silent or embrace atrocities, are often the survivors.
In late 2020, I was waiting in a dentist’s office. The Today Show was on, with hosts spouting the most absolutely insane stories that could only be classified as fear porn. When I got home, I talked to an old friend asking her, “Is this what people are watching? Is this why the world has gone insane?” I have avoided traditional news media for over a decade. In 2007, I wrote about the deceptiveness of main stream media when it came to reporting on various contentious topics such as the Bush torture memos, the war on terror and the 2008 financial collapse. Since my return to America, our main stream media has only gotten worse, spreading fear and anger, both domestically and abroad.
There has been a large rise in independent media. A new era of reporters, interviewers and analysts are opening up the landscape of news and punditry. They are changing things in a big way. To those whose eyes are open; those who are paying attention: What we used to call Main Stream Media is clearly nothing more than propaganda networks funded by advertisers. Large industries have tremendous influence over both government officials and news narratives. Fact checking websites have arisen to fuel the industry that has been actively misleading us for our entire lives. We are at a crossroad where people will either embrace the orthodoxy of globalist narratives, or turn their attention to those who present more complete breakdowns of the complicated topics that are in the social consciousness of today.
In 2019, every 737-MAX 8 in production was grounded, barred from commercial flights by countries around the world, after two crashes that resulted in the deaths of all passengers and crew on the airliners. The recalled fleet of planes overflowed into the parking lots of Boeing maintenance facilities, and Boeing was fined over $2.5 billion over charges of fraud and conspiracy. A weakened regulatory process had shifted more of the responsibility of safety from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Boeing itself, leading to the horrific oversight of the design flaw in the 737-MAX 8’s MCAS software. On Monday, in America, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
Before you’re allowed to enter a bar, the doorman asks you if you’re on antidepressants. After all, there is an increased risk of committing mass shootings for people who are on SSRIs. Would this be acceptable? Of course not. In many countries, a person’s medical history, including whatever medications he or she might be prescribed, is considered private health information. In the United States, health privacy is one of the many things covered under legislation know as HIPPA. However, all the rules seem to have changed in the reaction to COVID-19. Now, people are not only proclaiming their medical information to everyone, but venues and employers are requiring disclosures of experimental medication in order to enter their premises. Whether you believe this is a justified request or not is irrelevant. It’s the end of medical privacy as we know it, and opens up an entirely new class of discrimination based on an individual’s choice to take a medication.
Newer