Existential Moment in our Color Revolution

spider

Something about the Revolver News story implicating FBI involvement in the events of 1/6 in DC has troubled me deeply. Deeper than my realization last April that we were observing color revolution methodology being used on Americans inside the United States.

There is much we cannot know, we can only observe and speculate, and I will try here to merely observe and ask questions and leave out speculation. I am also not impugning either Tucker Carlson or Darren Beatle. I cannot know what I do not know about their intentions. But two significant questions immediately come to mind.

Color Revolution-  is a type of systemic political corruption in which private interests, often aligned with government officials, significantly influence a state's decision-making processes, subverting the rule of law and fundamentally altering both the balance of power and the ability of real opposition to compete politically. Propaganda, psychological operations, and controlled media are generally utilized. (more)

First, Darren Beattie was the first person I am aware of, that got traction with an audience, to come out last year with an observation that we were undergoing a color revolution. He was certainly not the first, his articles on the subject were about six months behind the first indicators, but he was the first to get national attention. He appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show and outlined his observations.

If one believes that it is true that color revolution methodology was in play, then it logically follows that the implications of that are enormous. Almost nothing else matters. A complex campaign, operating at the scale implied means state actor involvement, it means significant portions of the government are involved and major institutions (like media) are also involved in some way. If one looks at all the dots, sees the connection, and then sees the methodology being applied in almost doctrinal precision, it is impossible to come away with anything more than a sense of shock and awe. None of the small details matter beyond supporting and building the narrative that this was occurring and occurred.

Yet, soon after Beatie made the rounds and Twitter focused on the subject for a bit, with instant experts in geopolitics and color revolutions pontificating, it all went away. He essentially stopped talking about the elephant in the room. [see 1 below]

Second, and do not take me wrong I enjoy Tucker’s presentations, if we go back and survey all of the fantastical stories he has covered in the last 20 months (strange finance paths, riots, corruption, lies, fraud, etc.) and throw in the fact that Beattie was on his show last year talking about how all the dots connect (color revolution) it is more than curious that Carlson never actually makes the connection. Each night he presents a very entertaining segment that deals with one matter, one issue, he often seems shocked and aghast, and outraged. But should he be?  If one really understands the methodology of state capture, should one be shocked by the details?

So, I was particularly stunned watching Beattie and Carlson talk about 1/6 and the accusations that the FBI was doing something behind the scenes and probably had some foreknowledge. It takes active denial to not admit that the FBI has done similar things for a long time (not at this scale, but the same methods - infiltrate a group with compromised people, encourage the group to go forward with bad plans). Any honest person knows that. Carlson knows what Beattie said last year about color revolutions.

Why did these two men sit and talk, Carlson looking shocked, about 1/6 when they had both already talked about the metanarrative?  It was odd and disturbing.

To be fair, one can make the argument that Tucker has corporate masters. Beattie maybe believes the full truth is too much for ordinary Americans to swallow. You can make that argument and I cannot dispel it.

You could also make the argument that this looks a lot like a limited hangout. We cannot know the purpose, perhaps it is to release obvious information in such a way that it can be debunked, that is a traditional usage. Maybe it is intended to spin up many Americans and call them to injudicious action, an action that can be easily crushed and then used as justification for more draconian laws.

What is obvious is that Carlson’s and Beattie’s suggested solution, a Church 2.0 committee is unworkable and naive (argument here). That being said, in their defense, what other choice, short of foolish kinetics, do we have? It is a sticky problem, and there is no real solution, we are in the web, every action merely entraps us more.

Limited hangout: "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

In another interview on another outlet Beattie said until this is resolved, nothing else matters, all of politics will simply be performative. In that, he is absolutely correct. If we have undergone a color revolution, if significant portions of the government played a key role and the media supported it, nothing else matters or will matter. Not elections, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court decisions – none of it. If this happened, and if elements within the national security apparatus conspired and acted to incite violence as a culminating event to the color revolution – nothing else matters until those responsible are rooted out.

The problem is, in the consolidation phase of a color revolution, after most of the population did not even realize what was happening it is nearly impossible to turn the tide. That is the reality we face. We are in the web, we walked straight into a L-shaped ambush.

Our moment of existential choice has passed I am afraid.

[1] Let's circle back to that brief moment last year on Twitter and in the news cycle where folks talked about "color revolution".  As mentioned above it came into the conversation after Darren Beattie published a piece on Revolver and went on the talk news circuit, specifically Tucker Carlson. I recall waking up the next day to amazement that my little blog was getting so much search traffic, specifically to color revolution articles I had previously written. Prior to that, it was a mere trickle.

On Twitter, there were numerous instant 'experts', many that had never heard the term before or perhaps only in passing. Few really understood the full methodology and all the tools in the kit bag. Almost all of the folks that latched on to the subject were Trump supporters. They mistook the implications and thought this was all just about 'libs and MAGA' and some plan to 'get Trump'. Invariably, the fact-checkers soon weighed in, debunking the possibility that such a thing could be happening here "look how outrageous these Trump people are". Soon, talk of color revolutions died out, people went on to new shiny topics, abandoning the metanarrative.

Of course what happened and is still happening was never really about Trump. Either he was too incompetent to see that many of his decisions and policies enabled the event (CR), or he was part of it, there is no other reasonable explanation. He was a dupe or a tool, take your pick, but either way, the color revolution would never have succeeded without key actions by him.

This brings us to ask the question...was the public talk of a color revolution part of a limited hangout, intended to give bad meat to the masses to run with and make fools of themselves with, something later debunked by the media? There were people talking about it and highlighting the use of methodology, long before Beattie. Eventually, this truth was going to come out. Was the flash in the pan an effort to get in front of that and let it burn out in foolish misunderstanding?

I cannot say, but it seems odd, particularly considering that Beattie essentially abandoned the topic soon after.

 

 

I Have a Bad Feeling About This…

What a difference a year makes! With what appears to be a sudden ‘turn of the narrative’ many believe there is hope, perhaps the storm of stupid is about to break. Maybe, maybe not. But that is not my point here.

A year ago I was:

  • Saying out loud that Donald Trump was not innocent in what was happening (not as big a fool as he would need to be to allow 2020 to manifest, he was part of it) – that made me so many friends…
  • Arguing daily with a fellow I grew up with, now a Methodist ‘minister’ an advocate of existentialism, concerning to his position that what I was seeing with my own eyes relative to the virus, lockdowns, and riots was not reality…
  • Arguing that if one wants to fight hate, you do not do so by supporting a racist and ethnically gnostic organization like BLM, and you do not support violence and destruction, not only do you not support it, you do not tolerate it...
  • Politely disagreeing with a Presbyterian minister who claimed what was going on was just a temporary phase, ‘nothing to be concerned with’…
  • Writing early in the year that everything happening pointed to color revolution methodology being in play…
  • Arguing almost daily with an old friend, that is a friend no more, that I actually do believe in science, as in the scientific method and scientific inquiry, but I do not believe in scientism and I do not submit to brazen appeals to authority…
  • Stating over and over that there was something fishy about the Biden campaign, from the ‘we cannot count people standing in a gymnasium' (Iowa caucus) to him never even campaigning and yet "getting more votes than anyone in history"…
  • Telling people I love that they ought to be smart with their money, pay off debt and save up some things like food…
  • Pointing out there were tons of reasons to suspect the virus was engineered in a lab in Wuhan...
  • Saying all year that all those riots were controlled and being used for political ends and worse, an actual color revolution, and that BLM was a trash organization based upon pseudo-academic work – odd how they all just stopped in late October and even UNC has pulled back from that 1619 fiction writer.

What is going on now…. Well, only a fool or a liar can:

  • Deny at this point that a lot of funny business went on in the election, at a scale and a level of complication never seen…
  • Think that locking down the country and causing all that harm was moral or right...
  • Believe that face diapers ever made any sense…
  • Not see that all of the establishment experts lied, in concert…
  • Deny that the media and social media colluded in the lie and the suppression of information.

Every day, in small bits and sometimes massive torrents, the truth is unveiled. But why? Many celebrate the downfall of Fauci, Gates, and others and the growing evidence that everything we were told we must believe about 2020 was a lie. I am not positive this is all going to play out as some believe - with a happy ending.

I am not sure this is not all more machinations in a big game, something is afoot – You can just call me jaded and cynical at this point, but, well we will just see. I think I am right.

Three Dictators Walk Into a Bar…

The title implies a joke, but the joke here is the formerly solid publication The American Conservative (TAC). MJ (@realmajordan) emailed me the following article, American Nationalists, perhaps as a half-joke to get a rise out of me.

What a sad destination TAC has arrived at, after years of prissy-con pieces and mid-witted stone-throwing we arrive finally at this, their solution to our ills, one they attempt to paint as consistent with authentic American conservatism.

This article is intellectually dishonest in its portrayal of history and at times outright inaccurate. I have no inclination to dispute it line by line here. It is also very Straussian. I have previously laid out my arguments against this sort of historical revisionism and bad ideology. (see Centralization and the New American Order, Providence and the Straussian Narrative, and Jaffite historical Agenda)

But don’t just trust me, who am I? Let’s play a mental exercise, shall we? Twice in the 20th Century, two separate nations tried to solve the problems of economic disparity, turmoil, and growing Marxist ambitions through nationalist solutions.

The first is the oft over-referenced Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Many often ponder, how did Hitler rise to power, these discussions often miss the mark that some dictator was destined to take power in Germany in the cultural and economic shape it was in. That Hitler won out is a mere fact of history. The question as to why ‘conservatives’ in Germany saw him as less of a threat than a bloody Marxist is not hard to understand once we detach ourselves from who the Nazis actually were (vice what they said in speeches). The real problem with Germany was the bulk of the population had abandoned the way of thinking that had been a foundation of Western Civilization. Existentialism, Nihilism, Naturalism, and ‘Scienceism’ had replaced common sense, common-good, and ultimate truth for most. The Nazis could make the trains run on time, fewer people were going to starve under a fascist regime than a communist one but at the end of the day, without a moral foundation in the populace to parse what is right and wrong based upon unmovable principles, it is no surprise that Germany went the path it did.

Spain faced the same choice. A dictator was coming, one way or the other, whether it eventually manifested as a politburo and decades of poverty and starvation as a Soviet puppet, or in the form of a man like Franco, they had a hard choice to make. Given the reality on the ground in 1933-1936, it is easily arguable that Franco saved Spain. It was never pretty, his regime was not perfect and many bad things occurred – but that was going to happen in either event. But Spain is a one-off, a situation that cannot be replicated and serves no purpose as a beacon of hope. Behind Franco were people that knew ultimate truth and were firmly grounded in the traditions that have glued the West together. Without the Carlists and others, Spain might have resorted to Nazi solutions to deal with political rival groups. Their civil war was bloody and the reconciliation took time, but there were restrainers in place.

America is much more like Germany in the 1930s than Spain. All of the absurd philosophical concepts that polluted the minds of Germans are here, we have even more advanced forms of absurd thinking at our disposal.  The German churches failed, with a few rare exceptions, our churches are no better. Our entire communitarian megachurch movement was kickstarted by Peter Drucker, a Nazi-phile that thought the Nazis would have been alright if they were moral, he envisioned using the American church to bring that here. We are also just about as bad as the Germans at picking politicians, if a guy has charisma and says some things we like many will not even look at what he actually does.

No TAC, this Straussian nationalism you propose is not authentic conservatism and it is just as dangerous as the ideas of the mouth-foaming Marxist. I will have none of it. Authentic conservatism, in the lineage of Kirk back to Calhoun and others already has the answers you seek. I wonder what Paul Gottfried thinks of what you have become.

China, the Election, and the Color Revolution

It was, perhaps, a forgone conclusion that China would rise to the status of peer-competitor with the US. It was not a foregone conclusion that Americans and American institutions would aid that rise.

China has a long history and memory. It enjoys almost an almost homogeneous ethnic population. It has industrious people and they are many. It enjoys access to numerous resources. Over the last decade-plus, its geopolitical efforts have ensured access to ports, markets, and additional resources. (see previous summary of why China knows it is destined to greatness).

We learn just this week that a member of the House Intelligence Committee, Eric Swalwell, apparently received funding and had carried on an intimate relationship with a Chinese spy. Swalwell was of course one of the key members of the chorus that sang tales of Russia and Ukrainian collusion for nearly four-years. This is not unique to Swalwell, Feinstein had a Chinese spy on her staff for years. The Swalwell incident is, however, more pronounced. A young attractive female shows up with money and sex, Swalwell in his capacity on the Intelligence Committee received numerous briefings on counter-intelligence. A guy with a melon head and crooked mouth ought to have noticed a honey-pot when it tried to seduce him.  Any intelligent person with knowledge of sources and methods would have. Swalwell was briefed, many times; he knew better.

Yet, it is not just Swalwell. We might attribute his collusion with foreign enemies as merely the failings of weak moral character – the old “cannot keep it in one’s pants defense”; maybe.

We have now video proof that Chinese inside the party apparatus claim openly that the reach of the CCP into the bastions of power in the US is wide-reaching, intentional, and integral to China's long game. John Zimrak points out:

The speaker is not some fevered crank, or even a Chinese dissident embittered by the totalitarian government’s religious repression, forced abortions, and concentration camps. No, it’s Di Dongsheng, Vice Dean of the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China. He serves as Vice Director and Secretary of the Center for Foreign Strategic Studies of China.

Those are bold words, spoken openly to an audience that is apparently in the know. Americans that have made the same claim about China and its involvement, schemes, nefarious activities, and hegemonic goals have been labeled over the years as “conspiracy theorist” by our own media and geopolitical and intelligence ‘experts’. When we pull the onion back and begin to breathe in the full scope of the vast web of money, influence, and cooperation between institutions, corporations, and many within our government that seek personal gain we begin to understand why ‘elites’ in the US deny these facts and ‘elites’ in China know it as an open secret.

Zimrak goes further, asserting “that in every way, the COVID crisis has proven to be a massively successful biowarfare attack against the United States (and other countries) by China.” Many others have made that argument, all denounced or relegated to the corner and silenced. I have argued the same thing since April (our response was scripted by Alinsky, the gain of function element, and COVIDs role in the Color Revolution).

None of this seems unrelated. Darren J. Beattie, Ph.D. Is the man that deserves the most credit for placing the term ‘Color Revolution’ into the common vernacular in 2020. He was not the first to write about what was going on or to see the connections of trees to the forest, but he wrote a series of articles that gained traction and occupied some time on news outlets discussing the concept. Oddly enough, now that we are in the final stages of what we must now clearly describe as a color revolution (see an explanation of the term here) Beattie has made recent statements effectively denouncing those that point to China as having any relevance. Beattie must know that all previous color revolutions have been carried out through a combination of elements external and internal to the target nation.

Beattie did not respond to efforts to ask clarifying questions on his recent statements. It is, however, disconcerting that the one man that is now known as the ‘expert’ on the subject by most that only heard the term a couple of months ago would say things, even if nuanced, that would dissuade the masses from seeing 2020 as it truly is.

We have seen the capture of fake ID’s inbound to the US from China in July (link), 10,800 assault weapons parts from china seized (link), and 28 million in gold bars smuggled in from China in Aug (link) just the things we have caught and seen are enough to make one notice rising smoke.

In 2020 we witnessed that journalism in the main is dead and cold, left as an empty carcass capable only of disseminating disinformation and feverishly working to suppress the truth. Most of the media says nothing of China other than to 'debunk' legitimate stories and concerns. Why? How far do the effects of money and Chinese influence operations go?

Color Revolutions always center on elections, disputed results, and a culminating event. In the initial stages, the focus is on fear, confusion, disinformation, and chaos. The culminating event is always an attempt to hijack the narrative and then seize control, under the color of law and the promise of a return to normalcy.

No honest American, that has seen with their own eyes the events of 2020 unfold, can say with certitude that we are not in the midst of a color revolution. No honest American, seeing all the connection to, subtle involvement by and benefit by China can say with certainty that they are not involved.

The Great Reset: How We Got Here

Herein is a collection of videos and resources that assist in explaining how we arrived in 2020 at the point that we were susceptible to a Color Revolution, poised on the verge of a Civil War and many now clamor for a Great Reset. Many otherwise intelligent people have been deceived, confused and absolutely wrong this year, never seeing the forest for the trees, unable to see that all of the troubles, chaos, and issues were related and all pushed us toward the 'need' for a draconian solution.

Analysis of current trajectory toward a Great Reset

Ten part series that details much of the organized effort by communitarians, communist, socialist, and their allies progressives to move the West and the world toward a naturalistic, centralized, and ultimately authoritarian system. 

This is a must-see, Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB propagandist and defector. He lays out in this video the methods used by international communism, to subvert and supplant governments in the West.

Do you remember those 'crazy' Birchers? It seems they too were not wrong.

The following is a promotional/propaganda video from the World Economic Forum. They are not even hiding their goals anymore. All of those 'conspiracy theorists' that called out Davos and the Bilderberg Group were not wrong about at least this portion of their agenda.

Speaking of conspiracy guys - here is one that called out the plan and objectives of the globalist for thirty years (with shocking accuracy). This loud, obnoxious, and over the top guy got many of the players, events, and circumstances of 2020 right, the folks he has called out are saying the quiet parts out loud now.

 

Jones is whack-a-doodle, easily deceived and often wrong...but the video below gets a lot right.

Christians ought not worry, this was all prophesized. You ought to take an honest look at your church, your heart and your own discernment. Almost all of the major denominations proved themselves to be tragically flawed in 2020, falling for pieces and parts of the deception that has brought us here. If your pastor twisted scripture to tell you that a communist and racist organization was worthy of support (BLM) or that this was all just a moment and that trusting the authorities was wise, then they failed to lead.

Stop listening to those flawed and often false preachers, they were deceived this year and deceived their flocks!

Perhaps also, if you see this all now as the manifestation of Biblical prophecy, I would suggest you not jump too fast on the hope of a rapture in the near future. What if all this plays out slowly, and we and subsequent generations live through the emergence of an all-powerful government? What if it takes a hundred years for this to fully play out? We were promised persecution (hated for his namesake) for being true followers, not prosperity. We still live in this world, we still have responsibilities.

What is going to be will be. Politics cannot stop this all, if God wills it we perhaps could slow it down, delay it for a few generations. Evil is on a timeline, it knows its time is limited. It has polluted all of the institutions we are supposed to be able to trust (media, education, religion, and government). A vast swath of our population lives each day under a polluted worldview. Many wolves wear sheep's clothing in places we expect otherwise. The very best we can do now is to take care of our own.

Covid and the Color Revolution

In mid-late February, many watched foreign news services concerning the status of China and the Coronavirus outbreak in China and wondered if this was ‘the big one’.  When a totalitarian regime locks down a city of millions, literally welds people into their homes and builds emergency Army hospitals and somehow, despite their hold on internet services, footage escapes – wise people wake up and notice.  I recall the chatter in various places regarding low cloud cover that appeared to have source from smokestacks near the quickly built hospital – crematoria were the conjecture.

I took it all seriously.

Then I watched with growing anticipation, and perhaps some anxiety, the situation with the Diamond Princess cruise ship (and others). I recall seeing an interview with an MD, an infectious disease guy, that visited the ship. He stated he had never seen a more dangerous situation, in terms of quarantine and controls. This was clearly not news to anyone that has even casually observed various ‘outbreaks’ on cruise ships over the years. The close quarters seem to make them rather like petri dishes.

We all watched, and then, despite the fact that most of the passengers were older and in what would seem high-risk categories, the infection rate was not outrageous and the fatality rate was low. That was a moment of clarity for me, the first time I thought the China story was odd.

I am not going to argue from facts and data here. I have not bothered to go back and find the various stories and links, things that any of us that watched this closely will recall already. My arguments here are from reason, what does common-sense tell us about what we have seen. In the aggregate, if we look at the big picture, our reason and common-sense tell us already that something is odd. Common-sense has served humanity for centuries when it was impossible to parse all the facts down to finite levels of detail. It is sufficient now.

Things that ought to make us wonder:

  1. Low infection/fatality rate in vulnerable populations on cruise ships early on.
  2. From March to June, people went on Spring Break (we were told that was apocalyptic), to big box stores, and more WITHOUT MASKS.
  3. We were told mask would actually make it all worse.
  4. We observed verbal gymnastics as government bureaucrats explained the criteria for counting COVID-19 deaths, and we recall how those criteria changed.
  5. We saw a spike of deaths, many in nursing homes in New York, only to learn later that some bizarre things went on. (see this young lady’s research, here)
  6. We were told that nobody could talk about therapeutics, we were told to “trust science” but only some scientists apparently. (more here)
  7. At one-point, Brix told us that if we did everything perfectly, 200k people would die and if not 2 million would perish.
  8. Of the 210k that have died WITH COVID, current CDC statistics demonstrate that a small percentage die with ONLY COVID. Most of those deaths were old people with other serious problems.
  9. 99.8% (mean) of everyone that gets COVID survives just fine. The Flu appears to be about 99.991%. We see it as infectious, but it is not the Zombie virus, and we all are beginning to know that.
  10. Despite all of the hyper emotionality related to ‘super-spreader’ events, the media has never said a word about mass protests, unless they are related to lockdowns.

Here are the current CDC stats for COVID, bear in mind, not all counted in these numbers are people that died exclusively of COVID, many had other conditions.

0-19: 99.997%

20-49: 99.98%

50-69: 99.5%

70 & over: 94.6%

Taking a gander at those numbers, and the other things our eyes see, common-sense informs us that none of the lockdowns make any sense. Perhaps they never made sense. Humans have faced viruses and sickness throughout history. How is a virus that has such a high survival rate different? Why was 2020 different? How many people have had their lives and livelihoods ruined over this? How many people avoided going to regular doctor visits for fear of the ‘rona and as result cancers and other maladies have gone undiagnosed?

More things to ponder:

  • What of all the talk of Fauci, the NIH, and the Wuhan lab - and why is Bill Gates touted as a virus expert now? Good things to ponder, here is a thread.
  • You have likely heard of Event 201, the exercise in the fall of 2019 put on by Gates, the NIH, and others to practice for a pandemic. Have you also heard of CLADE X? (see more)
  • What if some of those videos that came out of China could be shown as fake, you know the ones with dead people laying in the street, would that make you take notice? (Look here)
  • Remember how as early as April progressives and radicals were building the narrative that in-person voting was so dangerous (this was just before they began ignoring mass in-person protesting) (see thread)
  • Did you know the WHO is a bunch of nefarious clowns? (read all about it)
  • Lastly, why does nobody mention China and their gain of function research at the Wuhan lab anymore? (link)

The cost of all of this is something we have not yet fully reckoned. We will likely never fully know the cost, but if we are honest, we know down deep it was huge. Do you recall when Boris Johnson initially planned for Great Britain to protect the vulnerable and work toward herd immunity? He was literally shut down. Do you recall when Trump wanted to close the border and take precautions but carry on? The media and the opposition party screamed bloody murder. (remember all that in January, we do)

We were told to trust the science, but epidemiologists working in Africa have long known that quarantines often do not work and sometimes have negative outcomes. A lockdown of this scale has no precedence, there is no data. it was not based upon science, rather a public policy guess.

Many of us recall the spat of academic papers that appeared and then disappeared claiming that COVID-19 had aspects of bioengineering. That was both odd and disconcerting, more so because it all was quickly suppressed. Here is one you may still read, "SARS-CoV-2 Is an Unrestricted Bioweapon".

And what if, as generally happens with viruses in the wild, this has become less deadly over time? Do all the panic and economic devastation and political posturing still make sense to you (view a thread on this topic)

I wrote back in April that the reaction and overreaction to this virus looked very Saul Alinsky-like. The fear generated in the population enabled the government to do things previously unthinkable. We learned in 2020 that our inalienable rights are contingent upon the whims of even the lowest elected officials, and sometimes unelected bureaucrats. The massive payouts, the massive debt, our initial attempts at universal basic income (UBI), our flirting with modern monetary policy (MMP) – all unimaginable in 2019. In a real sense, we moved much closer to a central, all-powerful socialist state in 2020, a larger jump than the New Deal and the Great Society.

China benefitted from all this. Some experts have claimed the virus was bioengineered. (article here) We now know it is not nearly as deadly as China portrayed and let escape in videos. We know that corporations want to return to the old trade model. The Democrats likewise. The democrats and China benefitted from this virus. Talk about election interference...coincidence?

Common-sense tells us that none of this made any sense. The virus is real, a lot of people get sick, some die but it is not what we were told, it is not at all what we are told. Americans know, or should know that this was all wrong.

Yet many do not. Almost all of our subsidiary institutions that we are supposed to be able to trust have failed us this year. Academia, the media, organized religion – all went along without objection, often leading the charge of absurd emotionality.

If we look around the world, we have to wonder the following:

  1. Why have the homeless in the US not been stricken?
  2. What of Africa, South America, and India? Why no large outbreaks?
  3. How did China get back to work and back open so quickly?
  4. Why is the bulk of the extreme lockdowns and the crisis focuses primarily in Five Eyes nations FVEY (Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the U.S.)?

The Five Eyes fact is especially disturbing. Parts of Australia are undergoing draconian government actions, arrests, restrictions, etc. New Zealand locked down a nation because four people in one household tested positive. The U.S. shut down the world's most vibrant economy, and has not let up? Why is the virus so selective?

If you can come to the realization that nothing about Coronavirus and our reaction made any sense then the next question that is obvious is why, why now, why at this point in history? Beyond the fact that the overreaction advanced socialist objectives, why has this overreaction affected only the FVEY nations?

Some suggest this is related to a globalist inspired color revolution. It is the Five Eyes nations that stand, or have stood, against a growing Chinese peer-competitor status and perhaps even hegemony. The populist and nationalist position of the Trump administration is anathema to those that stand the most to gain from globalism. Trump is as dangerous to that agenda and perhaps Sanders was, and we see what the Democratic party did to keep Sanders off the ballot (twice). BREXIT and a popular reaction to centralization were dangerous to globalism in Great Britain. These sorts of things cannot stand it seems.

Given the facts, given what our innate senses, our common-sense, tell us about 2020 and COVID, given the lockstep fashion in which the media has never questioned the narrative, in fact, they are the chief purveyors and perhaps creators of said narrative, given what we see we now; something is rotten in Denmark.

It is not only possible, but it also seems likely at this point, that all of this COVID response was contrived. That it is all related to a larger effort to conduct a soft coup, a color revolution in the U.S. The riots, the unrests, the unleashing of hate and angst, supported fully by one party and excused by the media – all seems related now.

If true, if this is a color revolution, it will end poorly, likely in violence.

 

If Democrats would use the FBI and CIA to illegally spy on a presidential campaign, do the things they did to Bernie to keep him on the sidelines, spend four years undermining effective governance, yearn for the day that relations can be restored with their idolized totalitarian capitalist welfare state of China AND openly support violence, looting and arson on American streets, is it a far stretch to consider that they would support an all-out color revolution attempt and use an infectious but not extremely deadly virus (perhaps one designed for this purpose) to help that cause? If they have used the intelligence community once for illegal activities is it inconceivable that they are now using intelligence assets in all FVEY nations to cement power?

It is plausible, more so than a mere coincidence! (Color Revolutions Explained)


Many of the links with research are from 'L' (@SomeBitchIKnow) follow her. She is amazing at digging for and aggregating bits of information. The conclusions and assessment are my own and do not necessarily attach to her take on all this (they should but I cannot speak for her).

I also realize, only recently, that some Q folks hold to this theory. I am not one of those folks, I did not get my assessment from them, this started to smell fishy to me in April. I will say, that just because many Q folks ask similar questions does not negate the theory. They are not wrong about everything, they perhaps just sometimes fill in too many gaps in their analysis. 

The “Trump and GOP Senators Deliberately Infected with COVID Theory”

It is hard to know what to make of the sheer number of reasonable people that are coming out on social media and stating how odd it is to them that Trump and so many GOP senators and campaign folks are all getting COVID now, just before the election. It is almost as if they already believe there is a color revolution going on. I realize full well that Congress spoke this week and told us that theorizing about theories is not acceptable when they condemned Qanon. Much of the leftist world celebrated and reminded us that of course, a cabal of pedophiles does not run the world, Putin does! Only some theories about conspiracies are acceptable it seems.

But what to make of reasonable people questioning the timing and circumstances of Trump and others getting the 'rona? One easy explanation is that they were in the same place at the same time. A counter-argument is the Trump travels all over, sees thousands of people - why now.

Eccentric entertainer Alex Jones predicted on March the 13th 2020 that before the election, 'they', would either infect Trump with Covid-19 or tell him that he was infected and then 'they' would ensure that he never left the hospital, essentially assassinating him. In this case 'they' are the folks running the color revolution.  Those were pretty wild things to suggest several months ago - in October, it seems there are regular people willing to consider such depravity is possible.

Here is the key thing to take away - the fact that enough people have seen enough odd shenanigans going on (lies in the media, contrived violence, mass deception) to even make it feasible that one could ponder something as dark and nefarious as the above having occurred is enough to tell you how bad this is - it is almost like a 'social signal' that informs us that we collectively know something is up, we cannot know all the facts, but we know somebody is out to harm us, we sense it and see tell-tale evidence.

Heck, before 2020, I thought all the talk of 'the CIA killing JFK' was humorous. Now I go back and watch one of his later speeches where he warned of dark and secret forces at work and I wonder, could those 'whackos' have been right all these years.

Here is another take - if you think folks questioning the timing of these infections are 'nuts'. Wait and see what happens if Trump recovers quickly. Mainstream media will claim it was all a hoax. I had a relative ask me today if I thought Trump really had COVID. He may be bombastic, he may be very 'New Yorker' - but he does not appear to be a man that would fake an illness and look weak, this is not in his nature. Just wait though, for the National Enquirer (I mean NYTs and CNN) to suggest this was all a hoax that he was ever sick - it will happen!

This is our color revolution. JFK was right, dark and secret forces are at work and deception abounds.

Universal Basic Income

CNBC, reporting on comments by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi highlights the first open admission that left-liberal progressives intend to utilize Coronavirus as a pretext to implement some of their most radical short-term objectives. Quoting Pelosi[1], CNBC reported, “Others have suggested a minimum income, a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so.”[2] Andrew Yang included universal basic income (UBI) as part of his 2020 presidential campaign. Yang was quoted as saying, “I’m pleased to see the White House adopt our vision of putting money directly into the hands of hard-working Americans.” Bernie Sanders, in one of his last campaign speeches before dropping out of the 2020 election proposed a scheme to pay every household $2000 monthly.

Willkie in her CNBC article parroted numbers of unemployed in the U.S. at approximately $25 million. She sailed to acknowledge that phase one of the CARES Act included a provision that added $600 per week to unemployment benefits, above and beyond what one would normally qualify for based upon prior income level. Numerous other sources have reported the impact of this fact – individuals make more money being unemployed than working[3], and some are unwilling to go back to work.[4] On the face of it, this is an absurd policy. No reasonable person can make an honest argument in support of a policy that redistributes wealth and pays people more not to work than to work unless the worldview behind the support of the policy leads the supporter to other, unspoken objectives. By any honest account, this is plunder.[5] If we accept the reasonable conclusion that paying people more to be unemployed than they made while working is absurd and the people supporting such are not deficient in mental capacity then we must also accept that something else is at play – it is a straightforward syllogism.  It is also a fact that the same people that supported the boost to unemployment pay in the CARES Act are now suggesting full-blown UBI, we begin to see the greater objective.

Universal basic income, once adopted, would be nearly impossible to rollback. It would be perhaps the most transformative public policy legislation in U.S. history. The implications of control and intrusion in everyday life and control of the economy are wider than any previous move toward centralization. UBI, if adopted, is a great step forward toward socialism. The fact that both of these programs are being slipped in amid a ‘crisis’ seems deceptive. “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit…”( ESV Colossians 2:8). Socialism is a derivative of the ideology of Marxism and the deception being used to implement it is abhorrent. Public policymakers and citizens must be vigilant.


[1] See video of Pelosi's statement, https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1254764438000984064.

[2] Willkie, C. “Pelosi says universal basic income could be ‘worthy of attention now’ as coronavirus stifles economy”, CNBC. 27 April 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/27/coronavirus-update-universal-basic-income-could-be-worthy-of-attention-pelosi-says.html.

[3] See, “Some people are earning more in unemployment benefits than they did while working, leaving little incentive to return to their jobs”, Business Insider, 21 April 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-benefits-may-be-higher-than-wages-for-some-workers-2020-4.

[4] See, “Furloughed Workers Don’t Want To Return To Their Jobs As They’re Earning More Money With Unemployment”, Forbes, 28 April 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/04/28/furloughed-workers-dont-want-to-return-to-their-jobs-as-theyre-earning-more-money-with-unemployment/#50054cb06b76.

[5] Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. United States: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Law/DZKE3-pV1AYC,  p. 13

Saul Alinsky and Coronavirus

An editorial essay in The Washington Times [1] argues that much of the hyper-crisis reporting and governmental action related to COVID-19 aligns with principles laid out in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.   Chumley begins her argument by quoting one of Alinsky’s foundational presuppositions, “[a]ny revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”[2] She argues that “[t]his is Coronavirus Chaos, exemplified.” In support of that bold statement, she provides examples of America being in full panic mode and willing to sacrifice more civil liberties to gain more perception of security. She argues that the Constitution has effectively been suspended, to the applause of the left and right. Pastors have been arrested for conducting services, fathers handcuffed for taking their kids to the park, public protest outlawed, and individuals drug from public transportation by the police.

Chumley observes that all of this, and more, have occurred in a time when we have yet to understand the real nature of Coronavirus. She observes that even a mere hint of skepticism is met in the public and private square with ostracization and ridicule. This comports well with Alinsky’s foundational presupposition, of a non-challenging attitude by defeated people, combined with later suggestiong toward the use of ridicule. Americans are not allowed to work, to produce and create a livelihood. Quoting Alinsky again she observes that this “shake[s] up the prevailing patterns of […] lives — agitate[s], create[s] disenchantment and discontent with the current values.” Chumley does not suggest that Coronavirus is not real, nor that it is necessarily a creation intended to bring about the consequences observed. She merely points out that the crisis and reaction cycle related to the event meshes well with Alinsky’s radical prescription. Her observation itself is a radical statement, bold questions and observations in a time when the discussion is so limited in the public square.

The Washington Times piece raises numerous questions that policymakers should be asking and framing during this event. Chumley raises two issues that are undeniable facts. First, the progressive left-liberals have held an objective of implementing many of the policies that have so easily entered public policy over the proceeding weeks, the adoption of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)[3] as one example. The second is perhaps subject to interpretation but hard to argue against, much of the behavior of left-liberal media outlets and politicians align with Alinsky’s Rules, it appears that progressives are taking advantage of the crisis, perhaps even exacerbating it, in order to enact policies they might never gain consensus to enact otherwise.

If we ignore the ease that governments across the land have attacked religious liberty, often to cheers of ‘Christians’, as well as numerous other assaults on civil liberties and basic common sense and address just the implications of our adoption of MMT, we find those implications to be profound. One simply cannot put the genie of universal basic income and magic money creation back in the bottle once released. The longer the lockdowns continue, the more ‘stimulus packages’ passed by the Federal Government, the nearer we approach to establishing a universal basic income scheme. Printing money to give to people not producing is contrary to historical lessons, averse to common sense and contrary to biblical teachings (Proverbs 12:24). Public policymakers across the land must take action now to react to Cornovirous in a principled, right-reasoned, common sense manner. The Governors in South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennesee have recently taken the right steps in restarting their economies – others should follow.

Chumley’s interpretation of recent events and her analysis of progressive left-liberals utilization of this crisis to advance their agenda is a cautionary lesson for policymakers. Policies made in a time of uncertainty, when facts and truth are distorted and the emotions of the populace enflamed are often bad policy.

 

Chumley, C. “Coronavirus and the smell of Saul Alinsky”, The Washington Times. 18 April 2020. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/18/coronavirus-and-smell-saul-alinsky/.

[1] One might argue, perhaps correctly so, that The Washington Times has a bias. Other news organizations that disavow the existence of their own observable bias would certainly make this claim in an effort to support an argument that the Times is not a legitimate news outlet. This is an absurd argument, in a time when the entire ‘Fourth Estate’ has abandoned neutrality and objectivity, the Times is as much a legitimate news source as any other.

[2] The Washington Times via, S Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, Vintage (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010), https://books.google.com/books?id=VIH0UbZ8qU4C. p. XiX.

[3] See for instance, “Unlimited Money and No Liquidity: Welcome to 2020”, https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/unlimited-money-and-no-liquidity%3A-welcome-to-2020-2020-04-15.

Coronavirus, Crisis, and ‘Opportunity’

A recent CNN piece that discusses the percentages of black Americans in three locations and the relative population size by infection rate. The article subtly hints at what some, more radical progressive public figures, have been claiming – that there is inequity caused by discrimination therefore the government must provide universal healthcare for all.  This is crisis/problem creation, straight from Saul Alinsky’s Rules.  


A recent CNN article[1] demonstrates the propensity of the left-liberal media to act as sophists[2] executing what one might argue is a direct application of Saul Alinsky’s Rules. Alinsky argued that “revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude”.[3] He also argued that the first task of revolution is to create issues or problems.[4] As the events of coronavirus drag on, we are beginning to see more news articles and discussions of how the ‘crisis’ impact favored progressive issues – this is essentially narrative building.

Yan and Holcombe in their CNN piece discuss Chicago, Louisiana, Michigan, and New Jersey comparing the total racial makeup of each area, and that to the incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infections. For example, the article states that in Chicago 70% of those infected are African-American while that population comprises 32% of the total. Quoting a representative from a group called The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law the group stated it wants to “ensure that communities of color receive equitable treatment during the crisis”.[5] This sort of piece subtly echoes what more radical progressive elements are saying, it is part of a narrative, creating the problem as Alinsky suggested. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently stated that “inequality is a comorbidity”[6] and that “[w]e need to drop the Medicare eligibility age to [zero] right now”.[7] The CNN article mentioned above lacked context, failed to address other potential underlying causes that might explain the numbers presented and left the reader with one presented solution, ‘the discrepancy must be related to discrimination’. It is part of a greater narrative effort.

This progressive narrative is wrong on several counts. Thomas Sowell points out that the state of healthcare in a nation is rarely an indicator of people’s health.[8] It ignores the fact that we will “always have the poor”. (Mathew 26:11 ESV) It is blind to the fact that every time governments try to eliminate all poverty, they only succeed in lowing wealth overall.  However, the CNN piece and the emerging narrative from the far progressive left is reductionist as it sees one problem, inequity based upon discrimination, and one solution, government-run universal healthcare.

This is, of course, not the only plank of the progressive narrative being pushed. The Post Millennial reports that “Jealous of coronavirus, radical trans activists seek attention from Buzzfeed”.[9] On its face, this is so absurd[10] as to be unbelievable, yet this is part of the debate in the public square.  This is the result of what Alasdair MacIntyre termed the victory of Nietzsche and Weber over Aristotle.[11]

Recognizing the progressive narrative and Alinsky’s tactics is one thing, counteracting them is another matter. Shaffer in Manifesto points out that principles and real revival are required.[12] However, even from what we might consider now an innocent perspective in 1981, he foresaw real change might require something more extreme.[13]

Public policy based upon the Weberism and emotivism that MacIntyre describes as the prevailing worldview[14] is flawed. It is antithetical to the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded. It is ultimately absurd because it does not comport with proven economic principles and does not align with the observations of history. If America is to traverse this crisis and those to follow with any semblance of freedom, right-reasoned government and morality we must act. The sophist, the progressive narrative weavers and the “useful idiots”[15] must be denounced or converted. Old assumptions about the value of enlightenment thinking must be reexamined.[16] The center can no longer hold. Two such opposing worldviews cannot coexist. Only poverty, tyranny, suffering and persecution can follow the complete victory of progressivism.[17]

[1] Yan, M, Holcombe, M., “Coronavirus hitting some African American communities extremely hard”, CNN, 6 April, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/health/us-coronavirus-updates-monday/index.html

[2] See Aristotle's Ethics: Writings from the Complete Works - Revised Edition. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2014. (EE 1.6 1217 1-6), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Aristotle_s_Ethics/NGmYDwAAQBAJ. via Strauss, Leo, Cropsey, Joseph. History of Political Philosophy. United States: University of Chicago Press, 2012. p. 121. https://www.google.com/books/edition/History_of_Political_Philosophy/E7mScxst9UoC.

[3] Alinsky, Saul D., Rules for Radicals. United States: Random House, 1972. p. xix. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Rules_for_Radicals/4LbvAQAACAAJ.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Yan, M, Holcombe, M., “Coronavirus hitting some African American communities extremely hard”.

[6] See, https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1246091210449719296.

[7] See, https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1246134686092537862.

[8] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. United States, Basic Books, 2008. p. 93. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Applied_Economics/gh4JdTv-t9sC.

[9] See, “Jealous of coronavirus, radical trans activists seek attention from Buzzfeed”, https://www.thepostmillennial.com/jealous-of-coronavirus-radical-trans-activists-seek-attention-from-buzzfeed.

[10] Clark, Barry, The Rise of Absurdity in Western Philosophical and Political Views (January 22, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3523995 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3523995.

[11] MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013. p.112. https://www.google.com/books/edition/After_Virtue/00rsK2Y98gQC.

[12] Schaeffer, Francis August. A Christian Manifesto. United Kingdom: Crossway Books, 1981. p. 71. https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Christian_Manifesto/eWHBcQAACAAJ.

[13] Ibid. 130.

[14] Ibid. 121.

[15] 1959, Congressional Record, Section: Appendix, Useful Idiots: Extension of Remarks of Hon. Edward J. Derwinski of Illinois in the House of Representatives on June 30, 1959, (Reprint of editorial from June 23 edition of the Chicago Daily Calumet), Page A5653, Column 2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (LexisNexis Congressional Record Permanent Digital Collection)

[16] See, “Government for the Common Good”, https://calhouninstitute.com/government-for-the-common-good/.

[17] Clark, Barry, From Radical Progressivism to Authoritarianism (December 19, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3506918 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3506918.