Covid in a Time of Turmoil, Part Two

Below is Seneca III’s wrap-up of his two-part essay (part 1 is here) on the coronavirus crisis in the UK, with a particular focus on Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

“The rules of the world-historical game change from decade to decade, and the dogmas that we have now will probably become obsolete.”

— Freeman Dyson Mathematical Physicist, Polymath and Philosopher, 15 December 1923 — 28 February 2020, a sad loss to humanity even after such a great run.

Covid in a Time of Turmoil

Part II. Covid 19 as an inorganic socio-political enzyme.

by Seneca III

1.   A virus is made up of a core of genetic material, either RNA or DNA, surrounded by a protective coat called a capsid which is made up of protein. Sometimes the capsid is surrounded by an additional spikey coat called the envelope (see above). Viruses are capable of latching onto host cells and invading them.
2.   An enzyme is a substance that acts as a catalyst in living organisms, regulating the rate at which chemical reactions proceed without itself being altered in the process.
 

Later, for the purpose of this analysis, let us change ‘chemical reactions’ to ‘human interactions’ but first, in a very simple way, let us look at how the enzyme, furin, enables and accelerates the penetration of a living cell by a virus, followed by a short description of how mutations occur, and then a look at vectors.

First, enzymes. Enzymes have a region known as an ‘active site’ that binds to a protein or other substance during a reaction. The envelope proteins (capsids) of viruses such as HIV, influenza, dengue fever, several filoviruses including Ebola and Marburg virus, and possibly SARS-CoV 2 must be cleaved by furin or furin-like proteases to become fully functional. The human enzyme furin is encoded by our chromosome No. 15, band 15q26.1.

Some proteins are inactive when they are first synthesized and must have sections removed in order to become active. Furin cleaves these sections and activates the proteins. Furin is also known as PACE (Paired basic Amino acid Cleaving Enzyme. (Note: see mutations!)

Second, once the virus has penetrated the cell wall, aided and abetted by furin, it injects its own short-string RNA (ribonucleic acid) or DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) into the cell and supplants the cell’s own reproductive function, replacing it with its own and then reproducing itself using the resources of the original cell, thus rendering that cell dead and depriving the infected body of a part of its essential functionality.

Vector is the word used to describe the way in which infections travel (are transmitted) between living organisms. For example, the vector for Yersinia pestis, the Black Death bacterial strain, was the fleas that lived on rats and transmitted that strain to humans by biting them. The vector for malaria is the anopheles mosquito which carries and injects infected blood containing the plasmodium that causes malaria. The vectors for Covid can be personal contact, contact with surfaces with the virus still alive on them, viruses travelling in airborne aerosols from coughing and sneezing, and also from infected faeces. This is why cleanliness in all respects and social distancing reduces or precludes the chance of cross-infection.

Note: The shorter the genetic string of a micro-organism, the harder it is to kill. The converse is why we as human beings with our huge genome are so vulnerable to micro-organisms such as viruses. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs and is organized into 22 paired chromosomes, termed autosomes, plus the 23rd pair of sex chromosomes, (XX) in the female and (XY) in the male. These large linear DNA molecules contained within the living cell nucleus are open to a variety of attack vectors and what they carry, and the latter can now be bio-engineered via the use of rRNA (recombinant RNA) techniques and other methods… none of which were invented by bats or pangolins!

Continue reading

Covid in a Time of Turmoil, Part One

The following essay by Seneca III is the first of two installments on the political fortunes of Prime Minister BoJo during the coronavirus crisis in the UK.

Covid in a Time of Turmoil

by Seneca III

Part I — BoJo, dithering, the Classics and the people.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Hon FRIBA, is, as we all are, a product of his time and place, and in his case a time and place of wealth and privilege. This, however, is not necessarily a detrimental factor in the genesis of a British Prime Minister; Churchill was very much of the same mould and class, and when the time came to step up to the plate he did so despite his prior mistakes. Many of Churchill’s predecessors in political office and down his family line did the same. On the family side Marlborough was a prime example, and Winston’s model and hero.

On Johnson’s family side I can find nothing of note on the political front, so one has to look back to those two political and mutually antagonistic giants of the political scene during the Victorian Era — Gladstone and Disraeli (Churchill was born during the late lifetime of both of them, which may well have left some impressions on him during his early education.)

Gladstone was a Liberal, and Disraeli a Conservative Social Reformer who brought in ‘The Public Health Act of 1875’ creating a public health authority in every area. They were in essence two sides of the same coin who spent their lives back to back without ever joining in common cause.

Many of Johnson’s compatriots at Oxford and in the Bullingdon Club were reading PPE (Politics, Philosophy & Economics) so it is unlikely that Gladstone and Disraeli to were totally unknown to him. Furthermore, David Cameron was also educated at Eton and at Brasenose College, Oxford, as was George Osborne at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he read Modern History. All of them were political animals and debaters, and Johnson was deep in with this ‘in group’.

Consequently, I can’t help thinking that Boris may be a confused amalgam of both Gladstone and Disraeli, a muddle of their inclinations and character traits. As a result his known social reformation instincts are so often at odds with his wishy-washy Liberalism that they result in his dithering and prolonged periods of indecision before taking definitive action, particularly when faced with an unforeseen dilemma of the epic proportions that is his lot today.

Nevertheless, it must have been obvious to him that John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May had left one almighty mess to be sorted out even prior to Covid, but he chose to take on the job anyway, possibly consumed by hubris. Indeed he fought hard for it, so it is worth having a further look at his public persona and presentation and his consummate, driving ambition in order to determine whether we can find any indicators as to why at first he reacted to this his first real challenge in the way that he did… slowly, with trepidation hidden beneath layers of homely bravura, bonhomie and buck-passing to medical scientists, at least one of whom is known to have been seriously flawed in his previous analyses and consequent recommendations, particularly in the case of the BSE epidemic.

Johnson was born in New York City to upper-middle-class English parents and educated at Eton College. He read Classics at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was elected President of the Oxford Union in 1986. There, as previously mentioned, he was also a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club alongside a young Cameron and the later Chancellor Osborne, the former who preceded him into Downing Street prior to Treason May.

Continue reading

Sir Robert Peel Must be Rolling in His Grave

Our English correspondent Seneca III weighs in on the current UK police state under the ChiCom virus regime.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

— George Washington

Sir Robert Peel Must be Rolling in His Grave

by Seneca III

Things have come to a sorry pass in this once green and pleasant land. As I look around subsumed by dismay and morbid fascination, I have been forced to come to some appalling conclusions:

  • A society in which you are investigated for your thinking when you openly question whether men can “be” women is a Sick Society.
  • A society in which you are arrested for detaining a man who molests your daughter in public is a Dhimmi State.
  • A society in which tens of thousands of organised sexual crimes against children go knowingly unpunished to avoid the terrible charge of racism is a Conquered State.
  • A society in which it is bigoted to object to having ageing men dressed as women “twerk” to pre-school children in a public library is a Deviant Society.
  • A society in which basic observations of reality are forbidden by the use of magic words — “racism” “-phobia” — is a Silenced State.
  • A society in which you can be ruined for speaking the truth out loud is a Police State.
  • A society in which the shameful and disgusting are celebrated as virtues is a Failed State.
  • A society which has replaced the national home with the borderless market of everywhere is a Globalist State.
  • A society in which an invented grievance is a good career move is a Doomed State.
  • A society that penalises the talented and the bright in the name of “diversity” is a Suicidal State.

It is no surprise then that UK cops have been knuckling down clearing the streets and public places when there is no necessity to do so under even the latest Covid rules, and even when people were complying with them. They have actually gone to the length of poisoning scenic lakes so that people will not endanger the new status quo by travelling to look at them and enjoy the scenery and the fresh, healthy air.

This is no surprise, really, as it is axiomatic that the more power given to any police, the more they will abuse it. That is a law of nature, has ever been thus, and is one which in this particular case is exacerbated by three factors. The first is that their officer class is, on the whole, populated by graduate Common Purpose drones and ambitious box-tickers who appear to have nothing but contempt for Peelian principles. I doubt if they’re even taught anymore at Bramshill* (or whatever they’ve restructured and renamed it in the name of PC progress since 2015).

The second is that the collective IQ of the beat constabulary is now not, shall we say, particularly high for reasons iterated below, and thus thinking things through pragmatically in the light of observed reality is not really their forte. This leads them to function as a type of pre-programmed automata in accordance with the vague instructions given to them in their last briefing from the drones and box-tickers who have even less of a clue about what is happening in the real world.

The third and final — and the one with perhaps the most detrimental effect on the front line — is the introduction of ‘Affirmative Action’ over the last few decades and the consequent lowering of physical and mental entry qualifications in order to meet politically mandated quotas, many of such recruits having ideological motivations not in keeping with those of the majority population they exercise power over.

These powers are not something they or the government will willingly give up, and it is not out of the question that come the day — in approximately six months by my reckoning when they should do so by self-relinquishing these powers through the ‘Sunset Clause’ recently appended to the enabling legislation — they may not, but extend instead.

Consequently, for the time being, when being questioned or having your thoughts corrected, being fined or arrested, just smile sweetly, be polite and always use English with as many three or more syllable words as you can muster. There is little else you can or should do until the moment of truth re the Sunset Clause — and if it is extended, then…

Basic Rules for Guerrilla Warfare

Continue reading

Brother Antony Silenced on Breitbart

Regular readers are familiar with the work of our English correspondent Seneca III, who has been contributing essays to Gates of Vienna for more than twelve years. In recent years he has also been commenting on various sites under the name “Brother Antony”, and has just been banned from Breitbart News Network under that soubriquet. Below is his account of what happened.

Banned and be damned

by Seneca III

For a long time now I’ve been fighting our battle on other fronts under my other handle ‘Brother Antony’ which I suspect you are aware of.

My primary vehicle has been Breitbart London, now under the little-publicised Managing Editorship of one James Delingpole (according to Dr. Steve Turley) since Raheem Khassam left.

I’ve made many like-minded friends there, but today [26 March 2020] I’ve been summarily banned by ‘Breitbart News Network’ without even the courtesy of an explanation. Their prerogative, of course, but rather uncivil of them nonetheless. However, as there is nothing I can do about it, I would be grateful if you could just let the guys and gals from the BB comments section (those who also follow GoV, that is) and with whom I’ve had so many interesting and heart-warming conversations over the years know that I’m sorry I could not say goodbye in person, and I thank them for the memories. I will not be returning there even if given the opportunity, for I will not accept being chastised for speaking truth freely to power. Nor will I ever again offer my neck to the jackboot of those particular censors.

This is the offending post:

Continue reading

Religion vs Religion

In his latest essay, our Israeli correspondent MC wades into the deepest swamps of the Culture Wars.

Religion vs Religion

by MC

Perhaps my love of America and all things American has its roots in the regular supply of US comics sent to my brother and me by various relatives in the ’50s and ’60s, and amongst which was the occasional edition of MAD magazine.

Much of MAD was over my young head, but Spy vs Spy was always amusing and sticks in my mind, especially their pointed snouts clamped together when investigating a box (trap) from opposite sides.

However, Religion vs (political) Religion is not so amusing, nor is it confined to ink and paper, for the successful side of Western culture is defined by its (Christian) religion, and its demise is defined by the political religions which seek to destroy Christianity and all that goes with it.

The Christian revolution (I am not a Christian but I believe in the Bible) occurred when the Bible was translated into local languages and printed for all to read, and the Church was dragged out of its roots of feudalism (slavery) into what became democracy and even republicanism.

An important part of this process was the separation of Church and State; the Church having been responsible for many abuses that had held the communities of Europe in thrall for over a thousand years.

The feudal system over which the Church held suzerainty was a typical product of tyranny: a small elite, the aristocracy, owning most of the people as serfs, to do with as they please, and a tiny middle class of tradesmen to manufacture those things consumed by their betters. This was just a slight variation on the ‘warlord’ culture that has run most of the world from time immemorial and to this day in some places.

In the UK the feudal system was broken first by the Black Death, which killed off some 30% of the workforce. The subsequent competition for labour destroyed the idea of ‘ownership’ of people. Secondly, and as a consequence of this pandemic, a growing equality of opportunity was provided by increasing access to quality education. Ex-slaves and serfs used their newfound freedom to better themselves.

Under the feudal system, the church provided education and the higher-IQ peasant children were syphoned off into the cloisters. To a great extent this provided the stability required as potential peasant leaders were ‘kidnapped’ into religion (Janissaries, anybody?). Heresy invited a death penalty and life was cheap. In feudal times the Church was very much a political religion, and the Pope reigned over all the monarchs of Europe.

All this emerging freedom from under the tyranny of political religion, however, took hundreds of years to get to the idea of individual liberty. The cultural and economic impacts were minimised by being spread over such a genteel timescale. My paternal grandfather was a boy coalminer at age 12, but his sons went to grammar schools, receiving a quality education, and his youngest son even got a bachelor’s degree in engineering.

But do not think that the ‘elites’ did not fight back. Their main ploy was to create another politicized version of the feudal system that the church had failed to sustain. This took the form of ‘socialism’ where the elite claimed to be working in the best interests of the ‘working class’ by controlling all aspects of their lives. This was yet another political religion, of which we have now seen quite a few forms. Each causes its own mayhem, because there is no separation between political religion and state, and thus there is nothing to stop the killing when it inevitably starts.

Continue reading

“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

“It’s Their Interpretation of Islam”

by Michael Copeland

“Ah, but it’s their interpretation of Islam”, we are assured by smooth-talking muslim speakers. Journalists have picked this up, and dutifully write about “an extremist interpretation” that lies behind the latest atrocity. This assurance about interpretation is surprisingly successful. It is designed to make us doubt what Islam’s source texts mean, including — and this is the crafty part — those whose meaning is clear and obvious. We can easily be taken in by this appealing and fair-sounding assertion. It puts us off the scent. That is the idea.

First, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by an “interpretation”. If an instruction says “give away one tenth of your income to charity”, that does not require an interpretation. The meaning is quite clear, and the instruction can be exactly followed. An “interpretation” is different. Say a politician repeatedly evades an interviewer’s question with some bland generalisation. Eventually the interviewer says, “I’ll take that as a ‘No’”. That is an interpretation. It is quite a different matter from the straightforward following of what a text says.

Bearing in mind that the Koran — all of it — forms part of Islam’s law, how does the “interpretation” allegation stand up to the test?

Let us see. We can take commands and instructions from the Koran and Hadith and compare them with what muslim leaders and speakers say.

Hatred

Koran 60:4 praises the “excellent pattern” shown by Ibrahim when he said (to the Jews):

“Between us and you enmity and hatred forever….”.

How do the spokesmen treat that?

  • Osama bin Laden: “Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us.”
  • Osama bin Laden: “Battle, animosity, and hatred — from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”
  • islamqa.com: “Muslims in the West must have … enmity and hatred of the kaffirs.”
  • Alminbar.com: “You should hate them, disown them and their religion.”
  • Abu Usama, Birmingham: “No one loves the kuffaar. We hate kuffaar.”
  • Anjem Choudary: “As a muslim I must have hatred for everything non-Islam.”
  • Yousuf Makharzah, muslim cleric: “Animosity towards the Jews is an obligatory religious duty, and one of the signs of the believers.”

Killing

The Koran commands:

  • “Kill the non-muslims wherever you find them” 9:5
  • “Kill them wherever you overtake them, and expel them from wherever they have expelled you….” 2:191

What do the clerics say?

Continue reading

Twerking Our Way to Cultural Annihilation

I must admit that the video below was very difficult for me to watch; it took me almost a week to see it all, watching thirty seconds or a minute here and there. It was excruciating, because the topic is so appalling and disheartening. It made me glad that I home-schooled my son until he was twelve, and that he never attended public school. Mind you, when the future Baron was young, the schools were nowhere near as bad as they are now. And it seems that British schools have descended even further into the behavioral sink than American ones have.

The video excerpt features Tommy Robinson, who was one of the featured speakers at the launch of a new organization called Hearts of Oak. The group was founded by Alan Craig (whom long-time readers will remember as the leader of organized opposition against the London Mega-Mosque), Lord Pearson, Peter McIlvenna, Carl Benjamin (a.k.a. Sargon of Akkad), and numerous others.

The group is taking a principled stance in the Culture Wars, in particular against the devastation wrought by the “Trans” lobby in British primary schools. Be warned: the video excerpts included in Tommy’s presentation are not for the faint-hearted.

Tommy has taken the unusual tack of aligning himself with the parents of Muslim schoolchildren in Birmingham. These parents opposed the mandatory exposure of their children to trans indoctrination. Like Tommy, when the news stories about the controversy first appeared in the news feed, I found myself agreeing with them: “They’re right. Their kids shouldn’t be forced to participate in this filth.”

So this is a “strange bedfellows” moment for Tommy Robinson.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and uploading this video:

The Well-Organised Invasion

Compiled by Michael Copeland

“But the truth is: this is a WELL-ORGANIZED INVASION.”
— Viktor Orbán, February 2020

“Brussels will not protect Europe. They do not want to stop the migration, but rather to support it and organize it.”
— Viktor Orbán, March 2018

Hear what was said of THE GREAT ISLAMIC INVASION OF 2015:

“Islam will invade Europe and America, smashing Western civilisation and replacing it with Islam.”
—Mohammed Mahdi Akef, Egypt

“We shall conquer their countries whether they like it or not.”
— Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, Al Aqsa mosque, Jerusalem

“We are coming to your country, whether you want us there or not.”
— Illegal migrants, Calais

“This exodus itself is a terrorist attack on a grand scale.”
— Aldo Sterone, commentator

“The Syrian refugees are neither Syrian nor refugees.”
— Daniel Greenfield

“They’re not refugees. This is an invasion. They want to take over.”
— Bishop Laszlo Kiss-Rigo, Hungary

“We only have one country, and it is the duty of us all to protect it.”
— Viktor Orbán, PM Hungary

“The country we were born in, lived in and worked in no longer exists.”
— Julia Caesar, Swedish journalist

Continue reading

No Free Speech For Islam Critics

If advocates of free speech forbid the criticism of Islam, are they truly in favor of free speech?

No Free Speech For Islam Critics

by Anne Marie Waters

The British journalist Toby Young is the front face of a new free speech campaign group just launched in the UK. Young presents as being on the conservative right, and has defended feminist writers, including Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer, both of whom were “deplatformed” for their radical view that a woman doesn’t have a penis.

The Free Speech Union claims on its website it “believes that if society doesn’t uphold the right to express controversial, eccentric, heretical, provocative or unwelcome opinions, then it doesn’t uphold free speech.”

Quite. So why then doesn’t Toby Young believe in the right to express controversial, eccentric, heretical, provocative or unwelcome opinions about religion? Because he doesn’t, as he has made clear. When questioned as to whether Tommy Robinson could join the union, Young batted the question away (it would be a matter for the board!) and then began to virtual-signal. In essence, he said the union would not tolerate criticism of a person because of their sex (agreed), or because of their skin colour (agreed), or because of their religion (no, that’s entirely different).

Religion is belief, and a person is answerable for what they believe. What they believe constitutes a large part of who they are, and as adults they are accountable for it. I maintain that free speech means criticism of the ideas people propagate, and, by extension, criticism of that person for propagating such ideas. This applies whether the beliefs are political or religious.

The Union goes on to state: “We take no position on the validity of others’ opinions, political or otherwise, whether expressed in speech, writing, performance, or in another form. However, we condemn all incitements to violence.”

But they have taken a position: they will not criticise religion. Or, doubtless more accurately, they will not criticise Islam. Islam remains untouchable, even by an organisation founded to fight for free speech. The fear of Islam in the UK is once again on show for all to see.

It isn’t only fear of Islam itself that causes this; it is fear of the law and fear of the Left. The law will punish those who are critical of Islam in the UK. This sharia-isation of the law means that while gang-rape and child marriage and FGM continue unimpeded, insulting Islam is more likely to bring the police to your door.

The most imminent threat, however, is from the Left. Toby Young must know that if he were to practice actual free speech (i.e. the freedom to criticise Islam), he would be accused of “hate” and his mainstream platform would disappear.

Furthermore, Young has no restriction on his speech. He enjoys regular mainstream media slots. If he allowed criticism of Islam, those slots would evaporate.

While Young has unfettered access to social media, I have had my Twitter account closed for criticising South Yorkshire Police (the account was heavily shadow-banned in any case, and my number of follower would drop on a daily basis). My view numbers on YouTube dropped by 60% overnight; I am now censored there as well.

Worse still, I am routinely described as a neo-Nazi or fascist by the mainstream press and am never given a mainstream right of reply. Wikipedia portrays me as both a monster and an idiot. I am unable to respond on that platform. Toby Young is backing off from criticising Islam because he doesn’t want this to happen to him.

Continue reading

Stop Me Before I Vote Again!

The title of this post is an ironic slogan from the 1980s. It was coined to mock the “term limits” movement, which was (and is) a push to restrict senators, congressmen, and other elected politicians to a fixed, small number of terms in office.

The idea of term limits is absurd on the face of it. Just think — its proponents want to pass a law to prevent people from voting for someone they might otherwise prefer to vote for. And expect sitting politicians to pass legislation that would shortly put them out of office — how likely is that? As a strategy for civic improvement it seems at best quixotic, and at worst authoritarian.

Yet I can sympathize with the movement’s advocates. Once they are firmly ensconced in office, congressbeings continue for decade after decade. They accumulate power and perks, become part of the corrupt D.C. apparatus, and cease to represent the interests of their constituents. Name recognition, face time on TV talk shows, and the franking privilege — the perk that allows them to spam their constituents as much as they like via the U.S. Mail without having to pay postage — give them a leg up against any upstarts who might challenge their sinecures.

To attempt to fix this corrupt system with term limits would be analogous to putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The problem is far deeper and more systemic than can be corrected with yet more freedom-limiting legislation. Something in our social and political systems is obviously badly broken.

A similar process is underway in Western Europe. Even though the situation there is quite different from the bizarre political circus on this side of the Atlantic, the two political cultures have a major commonality: the political elites remain firmly entrenched in power without regard for the interests of the electorate. And yet that same electorate keeps voting for them over and over again in Europe, just as American voters do here.

This phenomenon first drew my attention back in the 1980s, when I read the results of opinion polls on mass immigration. Voters were (and are) overwhelmingly opposed to mass immigration. A substantial proportion of them considered it an extremely important issue. Back then it seemed a wonderful opportunity for some savvy politician to take up the issue as a means to gain elected office. Yet it was another thirty years before Donald Trump beat the odds to get elected president, and even then it was with a minority of the popular vote.

Immigration is the most prominent issue in the populist program, but there are many more — gay marriage, gun control, the push to completely cleanse the public square of religion, and other battlefronts in the culture wars. Voters have strong opinions about those things, but for some reason keep voting for politicians that ignore their concerns.

What’s going on here? Why don’t they ever throw the rascals out?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Over at Western Rifle Shooters they have a slogan: “There Is No Voting Our Way Out of This”, or TINVOWOOT for short. Empirically speaking, that seems to be the case: the rascals remain in power and continue their rascally ways, election after election.

Strictly speaking, however, voters do have the power to change their leadership. The German people can still mark their ballots for the AfD, and if enough of them did so, the political situation in the country would change dramatically. But that doesn’t happen. Despite their opinion about immigration (as revealed by opinion polls) voters keep voting for the same old establishment parties, all of which support the importation of migrants. In Germany, TINVOWOOT is definitely the rule.

Last September, when I was interviewed by José Atento in Quebec, he asked me what I would advise people to do in order to reverse the Islamization of the West. I said, “The steps [that should be] taken are the same as everywhere: the people should vote for somebody else than the people they are usually voting for. But they don’t…”

For more than I decade I’ve been emphasizing that Islam is not the problem. It is simply a virulent pathogen that is taking advantage of a severely weakened host. Our political and cultural leaders are enabling the destruction of our societies by Muslims.

Yet those treasonous politicians and media snoids are not the problem, either. We, the voters of the West, keep putting those politicians in power. And we, the media consumers of the West, keep turning on the TV and listening to the talking heads who explain to us why all of this is a good and moral thing. In the USA — where media outlets depend on viewership to maintain their advertising revenues — the viewers tune in to the propaganda in sufficient numbers to keep MassMediaCorp awash in cash.

Once again, what’s going on here? Why do we keep doing these foolish things?

Continue reading

A Designer Pandemic?

In the following video, the former CIA station chief Brad Johnson discusses the Wuhan Coronavirus with Vlad. The main topic of discussion is whether the pandemic is a genetically engineered bioweapon, and if so, what it was specifically intended to target.

Pay particular attention to Vlad’s annotations during the last two minutes of the clip.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for conducting the interview and uploading this video:

“You People Will Never Be Safe” — Jihad Killings in Islam

Michael Copeland has revised this article from 2013 (originally posted at LibertyGB) and brought it up to date.

“You People Will Never Be Safe” — Jihad Killings in Islam

by Michael Copeland

The killer of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, his hands dripping with blood, told the person filming him:

“You people will never be safe.

We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

Why is that? It is Islamic teaching. Islam has standing instructions concerning non-Muslims, the filthy kuffar, the unbelievers. Many, many verses in the Koran — over 100 of them — command the fighting and killing of non-Muslims, or violence towards them, to establish the supremacy of Islam. The Koran — all of it — forms part of Islamic law. For example, from sura 9, the very chapter, “At Tawba”, specifically cited by the killer, verse 5:

“Kill unbelievers wherever you find them.”

The instruction is ongoing:

“Fight the unbelievers and kill them until all the rule is Islam” (8:39)

As the former terrorist Walid Shoebat asks (What the West Needs to Know video):

“My question for the West is this: what part of ‘kill’ don’t they understand?”

After all, only one “interpretation” is available.

Islam is not ‘pick your own’. The tenets of the ideology are expressed in the Koran, the hadith (traditions) and Islamic law, and the leeway is nil.

“It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and his Messenger, to have any option about their decision…”

says Koran 33:36. The Koran is promoted as “true from eternity to eternity”, explains Sam Solomon, former professor of sharia law. Every Muslim is required to believe the Koran: he is not permitted to want or believe anything different. Dr Salah al Sawy, Secretary General of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, is emphatic. For matters that are in the scriptures, he rules:

“The Muslim community possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey.”

All have to submit. Islam means “submission”. “Submission” is code for Control.

Concerning violent jihad, killing to establish the religion, Melanie Phillips in The Mail makes a sweeping generalisation:

Continue reading

Attacks on Utilities

The following article by Michael Copeland was originally posted at LibertyGB in 2014.

Attacks on Utilities

by Michael Copeland

Back in April of 2013, in a little-publicised incident that was featured a few months later at Gates of Vienna, an electricity substation serving Silicon Valley in California was put out of action by what was initially and inadequately described as “vandalism”. It was nothing casual.

Deliberately, a critical telephone cable, accessed by a manhole with a cover too heavy for one person to lift, had been severed beforehand. A shooter or two with AK 47 rifles had conducted an attack at one o’clock in the morning, lasting some nineteen minutes. They knocked out 17 transformers and slipped away into the darkness before police arrived. It seems to have been a test run, and a highly successful one, of domestic warfare by persons of hostile intent. No group has claimed responsibility.

The site had evidently been staked out beforehand: investigators found little piles of stones left as if to mark good sniper positions. Spent cartridge cases on the ground had been carefully handled: they bore no fingerprints. In the event the utility company had been able, by contacting other generating stations, to bring replacement power by other routes on the grid to make up for the disabled station, so life continued without very much interruption. Replacing the damaged equipment, though, most of it specialised, takes time: the sub-station was out of action for a month. Questions remain.

“These were not amateurs taking potshots,” said Mark Johnson, a former vice president of the utility company,

“My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal.”

Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission assessed it as “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred.”

Alarmingly, an FBI spokesman, reluctant to call it terrorism, pointed out, “It doesn’t take a very high degree of training or access to technology to carry out this attack.”

That incident is not alone. Other substations in other states have been disabled. Such events are not particularly newsworthy, though: no celebrities are involved. Even if they are reported, the public swiftly forgets. As yet unsolved, they expose just how simply and effectively an essential service for modern life can be put out of action. Think about it. No power: offices and factories closed, no water pumping, no sewage control, no street lights, no traffic lights, no home lights, no television, no internet, no air-conditioning, no refrigeration, no washing machines, a surge in deaths in old people’s homes, and so on. In exchange for a few rifle shots at one o’clock in the morning whole populations can be disabled and thrown into disarray. Worse, several attacks at once “could destabilize the system enough to cause a blackout that could encompass most of the U.S.” Further, the replacement components are not available off the shelf: they are expensive and have to be made. Co-ordinated attacks would instantly exhaust what supply there is, and whole areas of population would have to spend months in a state of camping improvisation before power could be restored. It would be economically devastating.

Power is one area of vulnerability. Water is another. Al Qaeda has threatened to poison Western water supplies. This is to achieve maximum deaths of non-muslims in line with the Koran’s command, part of Islamic law, to “Kill unbelievers wherever you find them” (Koran 9:5, the chapter cited by the killer of soldier Lee Rigby). Several plots for mass poisoning have been exposed, and arrests made in USA, Canada and Spain (cited in Jihad Watch). An unusual incident occurred at Quabbin reservoir that serves Boston: seven foreign muslims, chemical engineering graduates, were discovered after midnight inside the security enclosure. Nothing had been tampered with, but why they had trespassed there at that time of night has not been explained. They were arrested, the action being initially treated as criminal. Some time later no charges were brought, and the matter was dropped.

Continue reading