Words Have Power

Words are the things we use to convey ideas. Words have meaning. If you have command of language, that’s a kind of power. But we don’t usually think about the dictionary writers as powerful. Mostly we don’t think about them at all.

Mr. Spherical Model and I watched a movie the other night about the creators of the Oxford English Dictionary. I’m undecided about recommending it, called The Professor and the Madman., with Mel Gibson as Professor James Murray, and Sean Penn as the madman, Dr. William Chester Minor. It was well done as a film, but because Dr. Minor (apparently in real life, according to the end credits) was seriously deranged, some scenes were hard to stomach. Anyway, Professor Murray was a Scottish autodidact, fluent in so many languages and dialects I couldn’t count them. And he happened to be kind of obsessive about tracking down the changes in the use of each word. It was a herculean task.

OED lexicographer James Murray (left)
and OED contributor Dr. William Minor
images from Wikipedia, here and here

One approach was to enlist the reading public. He had a note placed inside books sold in bookshops, asking people to note words and their usage, identifying quotes where they were used, and send them in. One of these notes ended up in the hands of a man in an insane asylum, who was very smart (a former surgeon) with plenty of time on his hands. So he made huge contributions to the work.

If you go ahead and watch it, you’ll notice that, when a word skipped a century or so and then reappeared, that didn’t mean the word actually disappeared; they just hadn’t discovered how/where it was used during those centuries. Professor Murray wouldn’t let go; he just kept up the search until they found the links they needed.

The end credits mentioned that they were putting out about 750 pages a year, moving through the alphabet. I think they got up to around M by the time Murray died in 1915. Dr. Minor, out of the asylum and returned to America, continued to contribute until his death in 1920, when the project was up to about T (I’m going by memory, so I may be off by several letters for each of them). Begun in 1879, it took until 1928 to complete.

This was the unabridged version—everything there is to know or ever was known about each word; it ran twelve volumes, and defined 414,825 words. Most dictionaries are abridged. They’re about giving you a quick answer to the basic question, “What does this word mean?” There’s minimal history, pronunciation guide, parts of speech, and useful meanings.

I don’t know who decides what gets into a dictionary and what gets abridged (left out). Lexicographers are the people getting paid to do the tasks, and I assume there’s some sort of hierarchy of decision-making as in most fields.

But what you would not expect is for a dictionary to delete a definition that is still fully in use—and is in fact the standard meaning most speakers of the language assume when they hear the word.

But that is what has happened with this word: racism.

Joshua Philipp brought this up on his Crossroads Q&A[i] last Thursday. He brought up a screenshot of the current 2021 online Merriam-Webster Dictionary for the word racism. It shows three main definitions:

1.    a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2.    a. the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.

2.    b. a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles.

If you think about it, what you’ll find missing is the most common understanding of the word: racial prejudice or discrimination—essentially pre-judging someone negatively based on their skin color or race.

I often pull out my older dictionary for historical perspective: Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, printed in 1982. In that one racism’s first meaning refers us to the variant racialism, which has given way over the years to racism. But the main definition there says:

1.    a doctrine or teaching without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races.

Then there’s a second meaning only under racism:

2.    any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, etc. based on racialism.

from the Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1982

1.    Why does the deletion of this basic meaning matter? It’s a bait and switch. They can’t implement policies against people based on their skin color and not be racist—unless they delete that definition and pretend the word means some systemic societal flaw. As Joshua Philipp puts it:

Why did they have to remove that? Again, in order to frame these new narratives. Because, folks, they are conducting racial prejudice and discrimination through these policies. And, as a reminder, the way they altered it, they removed that, the way they altered it is by saying it includes now, instead of that, systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.

They’re talking specifically here about the social systems that they could say creates oppression—socially, economically, and politically. Political disadvantage, meaning that any kind of system of lacking equity—equality of outcome—could be defined as racism.

In other words, folks, they’re saying that anything that’s not socialism is racist. Anything that does not create absolute equality—equity, equality of outcome—is racist.

They’ve defined racism by removing the actual definition of the word: racial prejudice or discrimination. They altered it to make it so that anything other than equality of outcome is racist. To make it so, again, that anything other than socialism is called racist.

You might recall that, in my last post, we saw a similar bait and switch with the term white supremacy. In the minds of most people, it’s still a fringe group of people who hate anyone not of their race—a fringe so tiny most of us have never met one. Yet we’re told, with alarm, that white supremacy is everywhere and affects everything. But the definition being thrown at us is, “related to a society that historically had a majority of white-skinned people.” That means liking Shakespeare is white supremacy. Admiring the teachings of Aristotle and Plato is white supremacy. They’ve rendered the term meaningless, but throw it around hoping the stigma of the original definition will stick.

Racism is yet another term that uses the stigma attached to the tiny subset—in this case people who practice prejudice or discrimination based on race—and smear a whole group with it: all whites. And since people don’t want to be thought of with that horrible stigma, they do whatever the word-wielders say they must do. And that’s getting pretty extreme. After all, if your whole system is built on something as vile as racism (not on prejudice or discrimination really, but on a system that may produce unequal outcomes, yet with the stigma of the former), then you tear the whole system down and replace it.

Marxism was set up to malign the system based on class hatred. Oddly, that’s a hard sell in America—since we’re based on the idea that all of us humans are created equal, without a nobility, aristocracy, or monarchy, and also no bourgeoisie or plebeians. And it couldn’t merely be about economic class hatred, because economic class mobility is the expectation in America. So the replacement for class and wealth hatred is race hatred—often extended lately to other minorities, in a Venn diagram showing where they intersect, because intersection means more power, but we’ll leave those for another day.

I took a screenshot of the BLM website “What We Believe” page last August,

 

when everyone was using Black Lives Matter as a way of saying, “I’m not prejudiced or discriminatory based on race,” when its real intent was the destruction of society and replacement with Marxist tyranny placing them in the ruling positions. Among the word salad of things that may not mean what you think they mean was the deadly serious declaration that they intended to do away with the nuclear family structure—disregarding all the calamities that happen when the family is damaged—and replace it with a communal structure. On other pages of their website they openly revealed their Marxist and socialist philosophy and intentions. It was not about declaring you weren't prejudiced or discriminatory toward blacks, as many protestors thought.

Marxism has always been about tearing down the existing society and forcing on it a tyranny that they call equitable, but is really just more power and money for the very few at the top and much less for all the others. That’s why they don’t flinch when a leader who declares herself a trained Marxist has multi-million-dollar mansions.

The thing about language is, you can’t actually change it just by including or excluding a word in a dictionary. Language is made up of the words people use to represent ideas.

But what you can do, if you have ways of pulling the strings, is use a different definition while you know the person you’re talking to is using the well-understood definition, and you attach additional baggage to the word. And eventually, when someone gets confused and goes to the dictionary, which you’ve manipulated, you say, “See, this is what it meant all along; you were just mistaken.”

The lie, this time, had to include people in power over the dictionary—at least a particular dictionary. I don’t know how they managed that. But if they—whoever they are—can change the language at their bidding, that should give us pause.

There’s a scripture I think applies. This is from the book of Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, the first time those ancient people encounter an anti-Christ:

And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.—Jacob 7:4

the story of Sherem the anti-Christ from Jacob 7
screenshot from this video portrayal

I’ve often thought about this verse, since words are my minor superpower. I think it’s a good thing to have skill in use of language—for telling the truth. But the enemy of truth, maybe especially in our day, uses power of speech as a weapon.

I’m still thinking through how to fight that weapon. Notice it. Call it out. Require definitions. Ask sincerely, “Why do you think that?” But do not concede. Do not give up words and their truthful meanings.

---

[i] The link is for EpochTV.com. While a large part of the program is available on YouTube, this segment was toward the end, saved for the membership site.

Fighting Off the Infestation

If you think you’re in a safe area where Marxist/BLM Critical Race Theory doctrines are not being taught in your schools, maybe you’d better check again.

 

TOO CLOSE TO HOME

cover of the spring 2021 issue of Teaching Tolerance

Yesterday I got a notice from a friend. A teacher in our local school district, Cy-Fair ISD (that’s short for Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District) had passed along to him a pdf sent to teachers in the district. It’s the spring 2021 issue of a periodical called Teaching Tolerance, provided by Tolerance.org. Their cover for this issue announces: 

White supremacy affects every element of the U.S. education system. Find out how students, educators and other stakeholders resist it daily.

Maybe you’ve noticed that the enemies to freedom and civilization frequently change the definition of words to the point that they have no meaning. White supremacy traditionally has referred to a fringe group of racists, so separate from normal society that you’d have trouble finding them and may not have met one in your entire life. There was a time when what few numbers there were of them congregated around a couple of small towns in northern Idaho. We fostered a teenage girl briefly, over 30 years ago, from that area, whose father was one of them. She didn’t even understand his beliefs, let alone share them. Even though she was in a pitiable condition herself, her situation wasn’t the fault of non-whites—few of whom had ever been part of her life, so why blame them? White supremacists are marginalized even further to the fringes today.

So the enemy is changing the definition.

There’s a quote you may be familiar with; I think it may have once become a song. Anyway, Edwin Markham wrote:

“He drew a circle that shut me out-

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle and took him In!”

It’s a Venn diagram, possibly reversing the purpose of that quote. The circle of white supremacists was so small—and yet so delightfully toxic—that the Critical Race Theorists drew a circle around all whites, with those actual white supremacists in the middle, and labeled the larger circle all white supremacists. Like this:

normal view (left) and Critical Race Theory view (right)

The handy thing is, the stigma of that tiny subset is still there; it is just smeared on the whole set.

So, how do you stop being a white supremacist? Stop being white. If you fall short of that (and what choice do you have?) then at least be anti-white and bow down to the supremacy of non-whites—blacks in particular—as penance for your inherited skin color sin.

The first inside page of the online magazine—before the table of contents—advertises a film for grades 6-12. Here’s the blurb:

Our new streaming classroom film, Bibi, tells the story of Ben, a gay Latinx man, and his complicated relationship with his father and his home. The 18-minute film can inspire critical conversations about identity, culture, family, communication and belonging.

Further in, they mention that the title of the organization/publication is being changed to Learning for Justice—so if you look for the Teaching Tolerance title, you won’t find it much longer. And, just as they weren’t teaching actual tolerance, the new publication will have nothing to do with learning justice. We’re told, on page 5, that in this issue,

We highlight stories across a wide spectrum of education, examining the ways systems and institutions perpetuate racism and white supremacy.

That doesn’t sound like it covers a wide spectrum of education; it sounds like it covers a tiny, narrow band of something irrelevant to our children in our very “diverse” neighborhood schools.

The new definition of “white supremacy” is “related to a society that historically had a majority of white-skinned people.” So Shakespeare is a white supremacist—and therefore unworthy of being taught. Even Greek classicism, along with any of its wisdom, is white supremacist and unworthy of being taught. (See p. 46, “The Classical Roots of White Supremacy.”

One discussion in the magazine mentions how horrible it was to read the classic novel The Scarlet Letter (see p. 24):

Like many products of the U.S. education system, I read The Scarlet Letter in high school. My English teacher practically danced around the classroom—she loved the story so much. I remember feeling conflicted. I knew some of my classmates had children. Others had unmarried mothers. The discussion felt unfair. I was left feeling dejected by a book that did not speak to me and by a lesson I knew could harm my classmates.

I did not love this book either. But it’s a style problem, not any problem this author notes. The lesson of the story was not that the woman deserved to be marked for life with a scarlet letter for bearing a child out of wedlock; it was that the hypocritical priest who had gotten her pregnant was not held accountable for his sin. She was seen as the more virtuous character, and he was despicable. This author misunderstood the story and missed the “lesson.” And I don’t think it’s because the theme is lost on someone with a different skin color from the person in the story, or from the book’s author, or even a different skin color from the teacher; it’s because this author is obtuse. Making an assumption that anything that comes from a white person must be unworthy of being taught sort of skews one’s ability to see value in stories from various cultures—something that Western civilization does remarkably well by any objective measure.

If this author had understood the book, she might have noticed that the message was that sex outside of marriage is not an act of love by the man; it is an act of self-indulgence at the expense of the woman. If only the author’s classmates had gotten that message early and often before they got themselves pregnant during high school! That message could have helped them, not harmed them, as this author mistakenly claims.

As the article’s author misinterpreted the book and its meaning, Critical Race Theory is a purposely obtuse misinterpretation of actual history. If you notice and disagree, you are, ironically, labeled with a modern-day scarlet letter—as racist, and probably also homophobic, transphobic, or whatever else they put in the Venn diagram, deeming you unworthy of participation in society.

 

WHERE HAVE WE SEEN HISTORY CHANGED BEFORE?

Let me remind you of the character Winston Smith from George Orwell’s 1984. Dr. Larry Arnn talked about this in a Constitution Day speech last year (reprinted in the December 2020 issue of Imprimis):

The protagonist of 1984 is a man named Winston Smith. He works for the state, and his job is to rewrite history. He sits at a table with a telescreen in front of him that watches everything he does. To one side is something called a memory hole—when Winston puts things in it, he assumes they are burned and lost forever. Tasks are delivered to him in cylinders through a pneumatic tube. The task might involve something big, like a change in what country the state is at war with: when the enemy changes, all references to the previous war with a different enemy need to be expunged. Or the task might be something small: if an individual falls out of favor with the state, photographs of him being honored need to be altered or erased altogether from the records. Winston’s job is to fix every book, periodical, newspaper, etc. that reveals or refers to what used to be the truth, in order that it conform to the new truth….

Winston’s awareness of this endless mighty effort to alter reality makes him cynical and disaffected. He comes to see that he knows nothing of the past, of real history: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified,” he says at one point, “every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute…. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

Dr. Arnn then asks, “Does any of this sound familiar?”

illustration from Teaching Tolerance, spring 2021, p. 56

Incidentally, that CRT magazine regales students who pushed for changing the name of three schools named for Robert E. Lee, the anti-slavery general for the south, whose military acumen and personal honor were admired in both the North and the South during and after the Civil War (see page 54). Somehow I’m certain the students were unaware of anything about him other than that he fought for the South. The article has an “of course he was evil” assumption, but it’s really about turning students into activists. If you can get them angry enough, you can get them to make the demands they’re told they should make.

There’s this insidious infestation of a “new” history (based neither on history nor scholarship) claiming that the real beginning of this nation is 1619—supposedly the year African slaves were first sold on this continent, as though this is the seminal moment that led to the country.

If only black or Muslim Africans had never captured and sold their fellow black Africans to people on other continents! If only none was ever sold in the Western hemisphere! Then the world would have been free of the slavery that has plagued pretty much every part of the world throughout history. Except—slavery was already here—and of course all those other countries. So whatever happened in 1619 was absolutely irrelevant to what became the nation that was based on the revolutionary moral idea that God created all human beings as equal—an idea that birthed our nation in 1776, when we declared independence from a tyrannical monarchy. It was the birth of that idea of freedom that led to the end of slavery—even at the cost of a painful Civil War.

And, according to Mary Graber in Debunking Howard Zinn (p. 92),

The Civil War not only led to the emancipation of American slaves but inspired leaders in the slave-holding nations of Cuba and Brazil to take steps to end slavery and avoid a similar outcome.[i]

To gloss over the moral antipathy to slavery, the very thing that made black Africans more free—and offered them more opportunities—than anywhere else in the world is nothing short of the darkest lie.

Pretending that all people without a certain amount of skin melanin are evil and shameful is not only a lie; it is racist. They call it “anti-racist,” because they like to control words. But in thought and deed, it is simply racism. It does not heal old wounds—wounds that in almost all cases were not caused by any living person toward any living person. It stirs up hatred and division. You can’t get to civilization by heading in this savage direction.

 

AGAIN, TOO CLOSE TO HOME

This evening I happened upon a video about Critical Race Theory at Brigham Young University, my alma mater. BYU is a large private religious university with an excellent reputation. It’s one of only a few universities that still required a core curriculum when we sent two of our children there. I was saddened to learn that the problems of other universities are happening here as well, where we ought to feel safe from the infestation of these Critical Race and Intersectionality lies.

The podcast talked about how, after you’ve prepared your child with four years of early morning seminary (scripture study classes before school), family home evenings (weekly home gospel study), church youth programs, church attendance, and everything you can think of to prepare your child spiritually, you’re so happy to send them to this wonderful school where the gospel is taught as part of every subject. But you might be disappointed.

The video is from Cwic Media, which offers helps for family scripture study, often related to the standard reading for the week, which I’ve watched from time to time. I’m uncertain who the speaker is, or whether it’s always him on this channel. But he says, after all your preparations, you send your child off to BYU,

And within a couple of weeks of being at BYU, a teacher starts telling you about some aspect of Critical Race Theory, and asks you to do a report, let’s say, on race issues. And they begin to talk to you in a new language that you’ve never heard before, for that student. They bring up words like anti-racism and ideas like intersectionality. And they start introducing you into new authors and ideas. This could be in any class. This could be in your English class—especially in the humanities. This could be in your history class. This could be in your religion class.

And it becomes obvious throughout the semester that, with that teacher who’s there at BYU, that they support this ideology. And you start thinking to yourself, because of the way the teacher presents it, that this is part of the gospel. That this is good. Right? This has to do with race relations, for example.

And all of a sudden, all of the effort you’ve put in for 18 years with that child, in their home, starts to turn to an ideology that is un-Christlike. To an ideology that takes away from the complete doctrine of Christ. And that, as people pursue it stronger and stronger, begin to doubt their own testimonies.

This is a reality, folks, happening all the time at Brigham Young University.

Last September there was a discussion, on Instagram, with people sharing their challenges with Critical Theory—and just plain anti-gospel opinions—being taught at BYU. Here’s a sampling:

Something interesting the speaker said on the Cwic podcast was that it starts with empathy. You want to have empathy; you should have empathy. So they use that as a hook. But then they extend that: If you don’t think blacks should be given preferential treatment above all other races, then you must hate blacks; you’re not a good person. If you don’t think gays should have the right to marry—thus changing the definition of what marriage has meant for 6000 years—then you must hate gays; you’re a bad person.

Instead of defining “good” the way God defines it, suddenly this Critical Race/Intersectionality doctrine redefines what you must believe to be “good.” No heresy from their doctrine is allowed.

 

WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? STAND UP.

If standing for something that all the people around you agree with was enough, it wouldn’t take any courage, or stamina. But we’re in a time when it does take courage—not so much because you’re standing up to your enemies, but because sometimes you’re required to stand up against friends, neighbors, and family. Still, you have to do it. Not shrilly. But resolutely.

My friend, Bill, who informed us about this CRT publication being sent to the teachers in Cy-Fair ISD, already came up with an action. He says,

I am working with constituents in my precinct to meet at the Cy-Fair Board meeting on June 24th, to understand and get them on record if they are supporting CRT or not.  There are 3 board seats up for election in November.  We need to understand where they stand on this Marxist propaganda.  If you want to get involved or can support me anyway, please let me know and I will do my best to keep you posted.

He also already contacted his state representative to ask for support.

Meanwhile, in the Texas Legislature this session—which is nearing a close in a week and a half—there’s a bill that has made it through the House, and out of committee in the Senate, and looks like it might get a floor vote: HB 3979 by Rep. Steve Toth, from Montgomery County, just north of here. It would outlaw Critical Race Theory from being taught in any form in our public schools, and would require the teaching of real history, including source documents.

I hope it passes. But the people who simply change words at will are likely to call their lies something not yet invented so they can say, “Oh, that’s not Critical Race Theory.” They did that when we outlawed Common Core; they just slapped a different label on it. And upped the ante with Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.

I might as well mention one more thing you could do: homeschool.

---

[i] Graber includes this footnote: Paquette and Smith, “Introduction: Slavery in the Americas” in The Oxford Handbook of Slavery in the Americas, ed. Robert L. Paquette and Mark M. Smith (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 3-17.

Wars and Rumors of Wars

Earlier this month an offensive started against Israel, requiring reprisal. In just days there had been hundreds of bombs launched at Israel. They have the Iron Dome, a defense system designed to take out missiles in the air, but there have been more than air attacks.

In the town of Lob, the mayor has asked for an emergency declaration and calls this a Kristallnacht-type event. Rioting has broken out. Synagogues have been burned, their Torahs taken from their arks and burned. Homes have had Molotov cocktails thrown through the windows. Hundreds of cars have been set on fire. Some Jews are removing mezuzahs from their doors to avoid being targeted.

Images of attacks in Jerusalem (top right) and Lob
screenshots from the Mark Levin Show

Mark Levin talked about the situation in Israel in a recent show. He gave it this perspective:

Now, think about that. These Israeli Arabs get to vote; they have due process rights; they have property rights. They have all the rights of Israelis. What do they do? They turn on the Israelis. They turn on the Jews. As if they’re Nazis, in this particular neighborhood and community. Burning down synagogues. Trying to hunt down the Jews in their homes. It’s almost instinctive. And these are mostly young Arab gangs that have coalesced and that are marauding through the streets of this town. And it’s become a problem, not only in this town, but in other towns, we’re told.

What would we do if we had attacks from over the border on our country? We would put a stop to it with force.

What if we had riots from among our citizens, looting and setting cars and businesses and homes on fire? Well, I would have thought we would send in troops to quell the emergency as Israel is doing. But the experience of the last year shows that, in some cities, they just call it the “summer of love” and tell the people not to complain and the media not to report on it. But in a sane world, we can see why New Jersey-sized Israel, surrounded by Arab countries, some of whom are aligned with Iran, would take action to defend themselves.

Levin started his show with this:

The Israeli government I have no doubt told them [the US], “Butt out; we’re going to handle this.” Because they know that Biden doesn’t have their back. And they know that the enemy, the Palestinian terrorists, Hamas, which is on our list as a terrorist organization—it works with Islamic Jihad. It works with Hezbollah. It works with Iran. All of our enemies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this in a speech this week (translated):

We are in the midst of a major campaign—Operation Guardian of the Walls. Yesterday and today the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] attacked hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist targets in the Gaza Strip. We have eliminated dozens of terrorists, including senior commanders. We have bombed Hamas command centers and toppled buildings that serve the terrorist organizations. We will continue to attack with full force. We have just finished a consultation and assessment of the situation with heads of the security establishment, and we made decisions. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have paid and—I tell you here—will pay a heavy price for their aggression. I say here this evening—their blood is on their heads.

Do we know what this suddenly upscaled civil war is about?

The immediate reason is probably because Israel's enemies can, because the weak US administration is not likely to fully support Israel—unlike the last administration, which brought multiple Middle-Eastern countries to sign peace deals with Israel.

Levin said this:

The Biden administration helped provoke this, as I said earlier, by giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinian Authority without strings attached. President Trump had cut it off, because he said they’re not willing to give up terrorism, among other things; they’re not willing to negotiate with the State of Israel over anything.

The Trump position was, Look, let’s make peace in the Middle East without the Palestinians, then. And that’s what happened. He said the Palestinians can’t be the trigger on whether or not there’s peace, because, if that’s the case, they’re always going to be able to blackmail; they’re always going to be able to resist; they’re always going to be able to slow down the process and make demands and so forth—when in fact there are Arab countries, Muslim countries, and Israel that can make peace. And want to make peace. And many of them did. And, but for Biden being president of the United States, it was felt that Israel was going to have a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia—because they have a common enemy in Iran.

Things are very different under a Biden administration than under a Trump administration. Popping up as if they have a right to are these faces of evil:

Known as "the squad" in Congress, Rashida Tlaib (left),
Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Getty image, as screenshot on the Mark Levin Show

Levin says,

Have you listened to Rashid Tlaib? Have you listened to Omar? Have you listened to AOC and the things that they’re saying? They are a disgusting disgrace: Israel is an apartheid country, that they’re trying to kill and evict the Palestinians, and so forth and so on.

The Democrat Party has this cancer, this poison, within it. And rather than confront it, and rather than extinguish it, like with a fire extinguisher. What does it do? It pampers it, or pretends it doesn’t exist. It also exists within the Biden administration, which is really quite appalling. Not just Jen Psaki, the spokesperson for Joe Biden, but the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, the spokespeople at the Department of State, others who are leaking to the media—and the media’s doing it’s usual reprehensible job in turning Israel into the perpetrator and the terrorists into the victims. The terrorists know how to play our media. And the media want to be played.

One of them, probably Tlaib, complained that we are helping to arm Israel with the Iron Dome, but Hamas doesn’t have an Iron Dome, so to be fair we should provide them one. Hmm. How unfair is that? We don’t arm the aggressors of our allies? That's so evil of us it's no wonder the squad hates this country they claim to represent while speaking treason against us.

There was a tall building Israel knocked down in Gaza, in response. It housed the Associated Press office. It also just happened to house Hamas—and had for, oh, 15 years or so. The Associated Press was “Shocked! Shocked!” to learn Hamas was in the building—even though they acknowledged in 2014 that they knew it, and seemed to have no problem with that either before or after. So, maybe you’re not going to get honest reporting from AP.

The AP noted that lives could have been lost; they had many employees in the building, but were able to evacuate them in time. They don’t say how they accomplished that rescue.

Ahead of the return attack on Hamas, Israel sent out a message, repeated for half an hour, telling people to evacuate, because they were going to bomb the building. Israel, unlike practically any other fighting force in world history, goes out of its way to prevent loss of civilian life—hard to do since Hamas places itself in hospitals, elementary schools, and densely populated areas for the purpose of causing loss of life among their own people so that they can blame Israel.

When Hamas and Islamic Jihad choose a target, they don’t aim at military or strategic targets; they aim at high population centers.

The IDF put out this map. Note that Tel Aviv is the highest population center.

IDF shows where missiles are aimed at Israel.
Image found as screenshot on the Mark Levin Show.

Levin spent some time describing the Iron Dome defense system, including a video clip about that, where the narrator said:

It took just 3 years and about $200 million to develop this defense system. It relies on a radar that instantly detects when a missile has been fired. Algorithms quickly try to determine what type of projectile is in the air, and whether it’s heading for a populated or strategic area. If so, Iron Dome launches a missile of its own. It’s said that Iron Dome has taken down more than 1,000 missiles since it turned on in 2011.

I heard a report last week that the count of missiles launched at Israel since this siege began just days before was over 600. That was several days ago. In a week the Iron Dome has been up against an attack amounting to the sum total of its use during the past ten years. Israel fought off a fairly large attack in 2014, but this dwarfs that one. Later in that video they mention that it successfully wards off 90% of incoming missiles. That means somewhere beyond 60 missiles probably landed in Israel this week.

Levin interrupted the video here and pointed out that the Iron Dome technology was a legacy of Ronald Reagan:

President Ronald Reagan, Mark Levin
screenshot from the Mark Levin Show

Some of you who are my age, or even younger—this was the brainchild of Ronald Reagan. It’s called the Strategic Defense Initiative. And it was brought to the President at the time. People in his own party were skeptical. People at the Pentagon were skeptical. The media hated the idea, and we had article after article about how it was technologically impossible for a missile to hit another missile. And the Democrat Party tried to block it.

But Reagan was—if anything, he was steadfast. And he pushed the project. It wasn’t fully funded, but he pushed it throughout his eight years as president. It was pushed somewhat after that. And we now have this defense system. They called it Star Wars to mock him. “Oh, sure, sure, we can do this.” And I remember reading in the New York Times and other publications how you simply didn’t have the technology; it was impossible.

And, of course, as you’re developing technology, you have to try it out. They tried it out, and there were several failures. Again, the were mocked for the amount of money that was being spent. I want you to think about this. This is a defensive system that could knock a nuclear missile out of the sky that’s aimed for one of our cities. Democrats never supported it. The media never supported it. That’s insanity.

Now it exists.

Iron Dome mobile missile launcher
screenshot from Bloomberg video shown on the Mark Levin Show

Levin added:

A good chunk of the funding Israel gets it uses to advance their technology. Not for bullets. Some. But, to advance their technology, which they then turn around and give to the United States. So it’s really a two-way street. The Israelis can develop this stuff faster, because their bureaucracy and their people understand this is life and death. There’s an immediacy to it. Whereas, in our own country we have obstacle after obstacle after obstacle to getting these things done—including in the bureaucracy, but also the Democrat Party and the media.

So, US weakness has contributed to the current upheaval. But the longer-term excuse goes back to Israel’s birth and beyond.

If you need a review of Israel’s basic history—because you probably weren’t taught this in school—I wrote a 6-part series (each part relatively short) back in 2011:

·       Israel, Part I: Ancient History 

·       Israel, Part II: Zionism and Migration 

·       Israel, Part III: Conflict and Violence 

·       Israel, Part IV: Holocaust and Statehood 

·       Israel, Part V: Refugees and 1967 War 

·       Israel, Part VI: Continued Unrest 

Since that series, I’ve written occasionally on Israel, based on what was happening at the time. Here are a few:

·       Obama Bent on Stopping Israel, but Not Iran, March 12, 2012 

·       Civilization vs. Savagery in Israel, July 24, 2014 

·       Historic Day in Israel, May 17, 2018 

Besides Mark Levin’s show,  which is “Chaos in the Holy Land,” Ep. 814, on The Blaze, you might also want to see these:

·       “Israeli Airstrikes in Syria as Rockets Target U.S. Troops in Iraq AGAIN” Erick Stakelbeck, Watchman Newscast, May 5, 2021 

·       “Hamas is PUSHING Israel Into A Ground Invasion; Iran Using Onslaught as Dry Run?” Erick Stakelbeck, Watchman Newscast, May 13, 2021 

·       “The War on Israel Ramps Up; Celebrities and the Left Melt Down” Stu Burguirre (on Facebook), The Blaze, May 17, 2021. 

I don’t know how exactly how this latest onslaught from Israel’s enemies will go. Either Israel will be able to quell the uprising, or it’s time to start watching for two prophets, who will hold off Israel’s enemies for three and a half years, just before things get really exciting (see Revelation 11). 

Something Is Up—and It’s Worldwide

After my last blog, I heard a fair amount more from Dr. Peter McCullough, whom I referenced in that post. And Tucker Carlson, whom I also referenced. Dr. McCullough was a guest on Carlson’s Fox Nation show Tucker Carlson Today, which unfortunately requires a paid membership (which I obtained in order to hear it).

Carlson had someone send him the testimony of Dr. McCullough in front of the Texas Legislature a few weeks ago. I listened to that too. Dr. McCullough is very reputable—Tucker suggests you Google him so you know for yourself. He’s not a conspiracy theorist. But repeatedly he said, “Something is up. And it’s worldwide.” So I’d like to go over what is up.

Dr. Peter McCullough testifies to the Texas Senate HHS Committee March 11, 2021.
screenshot from here

 

WHY DON’T WE HEAR ABOUT TREATMENTS?

The original question that interested Carlson is, Why, if there are treatments, are we not hearing about them?

We went over some of the available treatments in the last post. But the question of why the knowledge of those treatments is suppressed is the puzzlement. Dr. McCullough doesn’t speculate on what is going on, beyond maybe group fear.

There’s a timeline issue he illustrates with this from Australia:

PM: And Tucker, it’s worldwide. Something is up. Listen to this. Queensland, Australia—you’ve probably been there. April [2020]—they put on the books as a law—as a law!—if a doctor attempts to help a patient with COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, that doctor will be put in jail for six months.

TC: What?

PM: Yes. In April they put it on the books.

TC: Why?

PM: Something is up. If you look at the TGA. Let’s not fry the US agencies. So let’s look at the TGA, the FDA equivalent in Australia. And Australia is interesting. They’ve been kind of spared of COVID-19. They’ve been in these draconian lockdowns. They have this huge, susceptible population. They’re all distributed. They’ve been in fear for 14 months. The TGA has some guidelines for COVID-19. It must have two dozen recommendations:

·         Don’t use hydroxychloroquine.

·         Don’t use Ivermectin.

·         Don’t use steroids.

·         Don’t use anticoagulants.

·         Don’t use—

They list everything you should not do. It’s like, what should you do? Net answer: nothing.

TC: But, OK, so COVID-19 became known to the West in January of 2020. So that was one year and four months ago. OK, so how could—with such a short period of time—the health regulators of Australia know, to the point where they codified it in a regulation, that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective therapy against COVID-19? Like, how could that be known? It couldn’t be known. Correct?

PM: It couldn’t be known.

Dr. Peter McCullough (left) is interviewed by Tucker Carlson May 7, 2021.
screenshot from here (may require paid membership)

 

MORE TIMELINE ODDITIES

Let me add a couple of things to that puzzlement. Much of the world, still, believes a fake Lancet study, which was withdrawn almost directly afterward—well, here’s what Dr. McCullough said about that study:

Lancet published a fake paper that came from a fake database that implied that hydroxychloroquine hurt people in the hospital. And we looked at it. In two seconds I knew it was a fake paper. They had 70,000 patients in a database that had detailed drug information back in December and going forward; we didn’t have that back then. Mean age was 50— 49; we don’t hospitalize people at age 49. This went through peer review. It was agreed upon by all the editors. It hung up in Lancet for two weeks and scared the bejabbers out of the world by using hydroxychloroquine…. And this is the most frequently used, widely relied upon drug in the world… for treating COVID-19. But something’s going on.

When asked about the fake data in the Lancet study, Dr. McCullough adds this:

PM: Well, it came from a company called Surgisphere, which rapidly dissolved. The Lancet published a retraction that said, “You know, we just couldn’t verify the data, and so we’re retracting it.” No apologies. No explanation of how this could have influenced world events. It greatly influenced the FDA staffers, who wrote an FDA warning. It said, “Well, listen, we think hydroxychloroquine causes harm. Doctors shouldn’t use this.” It was based upon a fake paper. This went to the American Medical Association, then the Board of Pharmacies.

TC: Is this a real story?

PM: This is a real story. And doctors were writing prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine, and all of a sudden their medical licenses are being threatened. There have been cases all over the country of doctors trying to help patients. And hydroxychloroquine is one of four to six drugs we use for COVID-19. It is extraordinary.

The Lancet study is still used. I was aware it was fake back a year ago. But people are still citing it. I heard the very sensible Niall Ferguson on a recent Uncommon Knowledge interview surrounding the release of his book Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. Here’s a segment from the interview: 

Peter Robinson: Here’s another quotation. The press, from Doom: "If a population is to make good choices, good information is vital." Vital! "The fact that President Trump retweeted a video of a hydroxychloroquine claim, a clip that was viewed more than 13 million times in social media, neatly encapsulated the nature of the dual plague the world confronted in 2020." Close quote. First of all, just remind us about that hydroxychloroquine, if I'm pronouncing it correctly. Could you just remind us about that incident? What was that all about?

Niall Ferguson: Hydroxychloroquine was supposed to have some effect, prophylactic or possibly also as a remedy against COVID-19. President Trump heard about this. The story did the rounds. There were some very shaky, I believe French studies suggesting that there might be some benefit. And he began, along with a great many people on social media and elsewhere, to recommend it as a prophylactic or as a treatment.

Donald Trump (video): I happen to be taking it. I happen to be taking it.

Reporter (video): Hydroxychloroquine?

Donald Trump (video): I'm taking it, hydroxychloroquine.

Niall Ferguson: As soon as any rigorous studies were done, it turned out that there was not only no benefit, but in fact, potential harm from taking hydroxychloroquine. And that was just one of a great many fake stories that did the round.

So, a smart person, who has done research on the topic, in fact written a book on it, still thinks the Lancet study, which was fake, was a “rigorous study.” There was one other study—in which they waited to give hydroxychloroquine to the seriously ill hospitalized COVID patients, and then they gave them several times the recommended dosage—without the other drugs in combination that were found to be working together—and killed those patients, then announced to the world that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. I was aware of the flaws in these studies at the time. Both bogus. But Niall Ferguson—even after a year of additional successful use by doctors like Peter McCullough and thousands of others—still believes those fake stories. That’s weird.

Ferguson mentioned some very shaky French study. That was odd too. I’m guessing it was a Dr. Raoult, who up until the moment he recommended hydroxychloroquine had been highly renowned; suddenly he was scorned. Only for recommending HCQ, as far as I can tell. I heard about his recommending HCQ—the day before President Trump mentioned it among other possible remedies that he believed showed promise. The press for some reason focused in on HCQ—told the story about a woman who used fish tank cleaner on herself and her husband (killed him) because a version of HCQ was an ingredient—among several other toxic chemicals; the press claimed this was proof Trump’s recommendation was dangerous. Remember that?

Then, when you’re looking at oddities in the timeline, there was the change in HCQ from a safe over-the-counter medication in France to being suddenly prescription only and possibly unsafe—just ahead of the pandemic. I wrote about this here. 

Dr. McCullough talks some more about timeline oddities:

And in fact there are pieces of the timeline that are suggesting that something is very wrong going on in the world. And whatever’s going on, it is worldwide. It is not just US. Things are worse in Canada. There are anguishing doctors and nurses in norther EU, and in Scandinavia about euthanasia and having the seniors literally just be euthanized. There’s some horrible things going on.

For a profession that say, "First, do no harm," this is both puzzling and disturbing.

I think one of the strangest parts of the timeline is the planning conference right ahead of the actual pandemic, and some other planning prior to that. I wrote this in July 2020: 

In September 2019 [Bill] Gates participated in a “pandemic exercise,” called Event201, which was specific about response to a coronavirus outbreak—one month before it appears to have begun in Wuhan.

In 2018 a video called “A Simulation for a Global Flu Pandemic,” was made by The Institute for Disease Modeling, posted courtesy of the Gates Foundation, showing a flu virus originating in China and spreading across the globe, killing millions—eerily similar to what has actually happened. 

In 2017, just as the Trump administration was beginning, Dr. Anthony Fauci spoke at a conference, predicting that sometime during this administration’s term there was a high likelihood of an infectious disease outbreak. He was pushing for funding in preparation. 

 

WHY ARE DOCTORS NOT ACTING LIKE DOCTORS?

AAPS COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
available here

What seems strangest of all, perhaps, to Dr. McCullough is the refusal of doctors to treat sick patients. He helped develop a protocol last spring. He shared it, and it was the most widely downloaded piece in the American Journal of Medicine on COVID—still is. That was published in August of 2020. In November of 2020 Dr. McCullough testified before the US Senate. I believe by that time or shortly afterward, he helped publish the AAPS guidelines for treating COVID. Still, most Americans are unaware that COVID-19 is treatable for outpatients. And most patients still get told to wait at home a couple of weeks until they’re sick enough for hospitalization.

When asked why the hesitancy to treat, Dr. McCullough says,

PM: The innocent explanation is, it’s driven out of fear. And the fear is, you know, “We don’t know how to deal with this. We don’t have large clinical trials. We don’t have the intellectual support to support our group think.” And then, “Because of this, we are going to err on the side of doing nothing,” almost as if we’re dealing with some type of contagion that you’d read in a Michael Crichton book.

It could have been all fear driven. But I have to tell you, as a doctor, that’s not in my moral DNA to let people die without treatment. Of course I’m going to try some steroids or some Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine. I’m going to add Lovenox and some other drugs. Of course I am. And sure enough, myself and others found out over time, we can get people through the illness.

I wonder what the “not innocent explanation” might be.

There seems to have been a “group think” among doctors and public health officials worldwide. Normally they collaborate, they try drugs they think might work, based on past similar illnesses. They share their results. They learn and get better. What they do not do—ever—is sit back and wait for permission to treat until some public health organization “rules” on what’s allowable. Except this time. Something is up.

He found that there are groups in the US—the Frontline Doctors and others; there’s the Bird group in England, Panda in South Africa, Treatment Domicilari in Italy, COVID Medical Network in Australia. But we don't have the CDC, NIH, or WHO doing anything but obstructing. He says,

We’ve got like-minded people that say, “Listen, treat this early at home.” But we don’t have a single bit of regulatory support. We don’t have a single bit of your conventional medical society support.

 

ABOUT THE VACCINES, THE NUREMBERG CODE, AND COERCION

Refusal to treat is not the only oddity; there’s also the oddity about how the vaccines have been handled. Dr. McCullough is pro-vaccine. But it depends on the patient. One thing he’s clear on is that there should be no coercion or lack of consent. This comes out of the Nuremberg Code, which came out of WWIII, where atrocities in testing on captive humans was done. He says,

We live by it every day. It says the person—the individual—gets to decide what happens to their body. They can take advice, but what happens to their body—without pressure, coercion, or threat of reprisal. This is really important.

A friend sent me an article just this past week referring to violations of the Nuremberg Code. It shows what the code is, and then describes a suit against entities in violation. Here’s the introductory summary of the claims:

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich
screenshot from video embedded in this article

A team of over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich have begun legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO & the Davos Group for crimes against humanity. Fuellmich and his team present the faulty PCR test and the order for doctors to label any comorbidity death as a Covid death as fraud. The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% faulty at 35 cycles. All the PCR tests overseen by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles. The CDC admits that any tests over 28 cycles are not admissible for a positive reliable result. This alone invalidates over 90% of the alleged covid cases/”infections” tracked by the use of this faulty test.

In addition to the flawed tests and fraudulent death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in violation of Article 32 of the Geneva Convention. Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.

The “experimental” vaccine is in violation of all 10 of the Nuremberg Codes which carry the death penalty for those who seek to violate these International Laws.

The “vaccine” fails to meet the following five requirements to be considered a vaccine and is by definition a medical “experiment” and trial:

The list, with some detail, includes these points:

·         Provides immunity to the virus.

·         Protects recipients from getting the virus.

·         Reduces deaths from the virus infection.

·         Reduces circulation of the virus.

·         Reduces transmission of the virus.

And then the ten violated codes are listed, followed by a video

I don’t know whether Dr. McCullough knows anything about this case, only that he mentioned the Nuremberg Code, and his main point was that consent was being violated. He and Carlson talk about this in relation to coercive pressure today:

PM: And as we move forward in research, we wanted to learn from this Nazi research, which was awful— We had a terrible situation in the United States—the Tuskegee experiments, where, for research, people ought to have informed consent. And they can freely participate or not. And we follow that in clinical medicine. This is really important. If a Jehovah’s Witness says, “Listen, I’m not taking a blood transfusion,” we can’t force it into their body. If we have a patient who says, “Doctor, I’m not taking a vaccine,” we cannot—"without pressure, coercion, or reprisal.” We can’t have somebody say, “Listen, I’m going to lose my job.” That’s pretty strong coercion, don’t you think?

TC: Yeah. You can’t make a living. You can’t eat. Yeah, that’s about the strongest possible—I mean, short of physical harm. That’s the strongest.

PM: How about, “I can’t go to school”? “I can’t get my college degree?”

TC: “Your children can’t be educated if you don’t obey”? So that’s— I think that’s the point that all decent people have considered at some point in the last week or two, as we’re learning that coercion is real, and that you will be punished unless you obey. My question to you, though, as a physician, is, that is in direct contradiction of the Nuremberg Code. Is that something that all physicians are familiar with?

PM: Yes.

I’m trying to get perspective here. The vaccines are approved on an EUA basis—emergency use authorization, which means no guarantee of either safety or efficacy. Excluded from the trials are COVID-recovered people, pregnant women, women of childbearing age who can’t verify contraception, children under 18, people with compromised immune systems, or people who have had a previous vaccine reaction.

And yet there is a push for EVERYBODY to get the vaccine. College students are often being required to get the vaccine in order to return to classes in the fall. Similar requirements are happening in some public schools, even though children are apparently resistant both to getting the disease and spreading it. And the policies aren’t even written yet—so these school officials haven’t even thought through giving exemptions to people who are in categories excluded from the trials.

Dr. McCullough calls out a hospital here in Houston—and I verify we’ve heard about it here. At first they were offering employees $500 to encourage them to take the vaccine—a coercion in itself that would not be allowed in a clinical trial situation. Not enough healthcare workers took them up on the offer to satisfy them. If the carrot doesn’t work, you try the stick. So they threatened firing. Some of the employees got together and pointed out that some of them didn’t want it, didn’t need it, and some couldn’t take it. The hospital administrators said, “You’re fired.”

There’s this point Dr. McCullough makes about why we take vaccines:

Think about this: We always vaccinate for the purpose of protecting the individual—because the individual takes on the risk. We never vaccinate an individual to protect somebody else—never. Because that’s asking the individual to take the risk for someone else’s benefit.

I’m feeling this coercion personally, because I’m threatened with not being able to travel, not being able to enter stores, not being able to attend a large gathering like a concert or ball game, maybe not being allowed to attend someone’s wedding. Some doctors even refuse to treat patients who come into the waiting room unless they've already had their vaccinations. This prejudice against me is not because I have spread or will spread the disease—but because I am in a category that cannot and should not get the vaccine. I’m supposed to ignore that and risk myself—for what? For the sake of keeping society safe—when I’ve managed to spread exactly zero COVID germs whatsoever during this very bad year? I’m dangerous and should be punished? Should I wear a yellow star to brand myself as subhuman, like we’ve seen before in coercive tyrannies?

And why is there pressure to get everyone to take the vaccine? Especially why for those who have long-term natural immunity already?

Dr. McCullough is very clear that COVID-recovered have the best immunity. The COVID-recovered can’t get the virus again, and they can’t spread it. They have immunity to all the strains. The vaccine is designed only for the “wild” virus, originally from China, but that one has pretty much disappeared from the US at this point. That’s why the vaccine will only be partially effective. He recommends getting a T-cell test, or an antibody test, or both, to show proof of immunity. That ought to be accepted. “They should get a gold passport,” if you absolutely have to show proof somewhere.

Dr. McCullough doesn’t, through all of this, get more conspiratorial than saying, “Something is up. And it’s worldwide.” I can’t solve that puzzle either. But there are far too many things that have made this pandemic plague us in ways it didn’t have to. There’s the control of society. There’s the refusal to allow treatments. There’s the coercive pressure to vaccinate. There’s the timeline, making it appear that this was all planned.

If that is so, who did the planning? And why would so many people blithely go along with their plans when people are unnecessarily dying and society is unnecessarily suffering economic and social disaster? How did they get all the media to buy in?

And how do we heal from this?

For another day, I’d like to know, is it related to other things we can’t explain?

·       Election fraud—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       Biden family corruption (and others in high places)—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       Bad stuff happening because of policy changes regarding the border, Israel and the Middle East, China, energy independence, massive spending and debt—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       The LGBT agenda takeover of our educational system, social institutions, and even the marketplace—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

·       The tribalism caused by labeling everyone and everything racist, even the country that spread the concept of equality before the law to the rest of the world—and the censorship of truth surrounding it.

And more. I can’t say for certain there is a conspiracy. But something is up. And it’s worldwide.