YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #jesuschrist #christmas #christ #merrychristmas #christmas2025 #princeofpeace #achildisborn #noël #sunrise #morning
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

U.S. Government ‘Cartel’ Paid CVS, Walgreens Billions to Reject Ivermectin Prescriptions, Push COVID Shots
Favicon 
www.infowars.com

U.S. Government ‘Cartel’ Paid CVS, Walgreens Billions to Reject Ivermectin Prescriptions, Push COVID Shots

Dr. James Thorp and attorney Maggie Thorp on Monday published an article in America Out Loud News exposing the U.S. government’s scheme to suppress ivermectin and push COVID-19 shots using some of the nearly $200 billion in “provider relief funds” allocated to hospitals and pharmacies during the pandemic. A “cartel” led by the U.S. government allegedly bribed large pharmacy chains like Walgreens and CVS with billions of dollars in contracts to promote COVID-19 vaccines and not fill prescriptions for ivermectin. Dr. James Thorp and attorney Maggie Thorp on Monday published an article in America Out Loud News exposing the government’s scheme to suppress the Nobel prize-winning drug using some of the nearly $200 billion in “provider relief funds” allocated to hospitals and pharmacies during the pandemic. The article highlights the controversy surrounding ivermectin, a drug that was “baselessly maligned” by the government, media and medical establishment despite its demonstrated efficacy against COVID-19. The authors noted former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s recent disclosure that he was taking ivermectin for long COVID — or for his COVID-19 vaccine injury, which he implied but didn’t confirm. Cuomo admitted, “We were given bad information about ivermectin,” and asked, “The real question is, why?”Save 40% on Ultimate Fish Oil today and improve your supplement routine & experience the world-renowned powerhouse formula! While Cuomo fell short of taking responsibility for his role in quashing the drug and shaming vaccine refusers, his reversal on ivermectin sparked a new round of debate about the broad conspiracy to suppress effective and inexpensive therapeutics during the pandemic. https://t.co/AgSNkAy4RmTo see other Publications by Maggie Thorp JD and Jim Thorp MD Published on the America Out Loud News platform check us out here below. You want to see the systemic corruption and FRAUD in every sector of our society in the last four years? Check it… pic.twitter.com/H91jR7XiRl— James Thorp MD (@jathorpmfm) May 20, 2024 The Thorps’ exposé comes as Steve Kirsch shared on X (formerly known as Twitter) today that California healthcare facilities and other organizations received a total of $9.2 billion from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Provider Relief Fund to “push the jabs on everyone.” Pharmacies ‘brazen in their refusal to fill ivermectin prescriptions’ In their article, the Thorps quoted Dr. Pierre Kory’s book, “The War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic,” describing the suppression of therapeutics occurring at the height of the pandemic. “In the wake of the global horse-dewormer propaganda campaign, hospitals started pulling ivermectin from their pharmacies,” Kory wrote. Kory, a pulmonologist and co-founder and president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, described hospital health systems threatening to fire employees if they prescribed the drug and pharmacies becoming “even more brazen in their refusal to fill ivermectin prescriptions.” Some of these same pharmacies claim they are still prohibited from filling ivermectin prescriptions as a COVID-19 treatment, according to the Thorps. According to Kory, the results of over 100 trials show that ivermectin could have effectively treated the virus and saved countless lives. Paying pharmacies not to fill ivermectin prescriptions was only one element of a multi-prong strategy that included threats against doctors, ranging from shaming to loss of hospital access. The Thorps cited the case of Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, who had her hospital privileges suspended for speaking out about her success treating patients with ivermectin. Despite the suppression of ivermectin, credible sources reported U.S. Congress members in 2021 were taking the drug for COVID-19. Never forget that members of Congress, their staffers, and family members were taking ivermectin in 2021 and stayed out of the hospital while the FDA and the media smeared ivermectin as “horse dewormer” and attacked anyone who publicized ivermectin as a cheap, safe, and effective… https://t.co/hJhmEW0RHk— David Hamilton, School Board Trustee (@Hamilton4TX) May 21, 2024 ‘Trusted’ sources chose ‘profit over people’ CVS and Walgreens are the two largest pharmacies in the U.S., with nearly 18,000 locations between them. One contract from 2022 shows CVS potentially receiving over $2.1 billion for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program called ICATT, or “Increasing Community Access to Testing for COVID-19,” that funded more than 19,000 testing sites targeting the uninsured and underinsured. Walgreens, another recipient of provider relief funds, in 2022 ran a “public relations propaganda piece” featuring a trusted “Walgreens healthcare supervisor” expressing his “big relief” at finally being able to give his 3-year-old daughter a COVID-19 shot. The Thorps also cited examples of these pharmacies running propaganda pieces featuring high-profile figures — like then-director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci and then-director of the CDC Dr. Rochelle Walensky — receiving their COVID-19 boosters at Walgreens and CVS locations. .@CDCDirector Rochelle Walensky visited a CVS Pharmacy today to get her bivalent COVID-19 booster. The bivalent vaccine provides added protection against COVID-19 and the Omicron variant and is available at CVS Pharmacy locations nationwide. https://t.co/wXDZYrmMyd pic.twitter.com/BQojEnRpl4— CVS Health (@CVSHealth) September 22, 2022 The Thorps suggested that if the public became aware of ivermectin’s potential effectiveness against COVID-19, the market for the government’s mRNA vaccines might have collapsed, jeopardizing the prospective profits of the “medical-industrial complex.” “Why in the world would any supplier want to promote or prescribe a cheap and readily available drug — like Ivermectin — if doing so would throw a wrench into potential billion-dollar cash-cow contracts with the federal government?” they asked. “The U.S. government targeted and paid off ‘trusted’ sources to purposefully spoon-feed bad and even dangerous information to everyday Americans,” they wrote. “These ‘trusted’ sources chose profits over people.” The article contains links to government contracting sites and other sources for those who want to do their own research. Investigation ‘likely to be far darker’ than most could imagine As more information comes to light about the potential efficacy of ivermectin and the alleged financial incentives that may have influenced the actions of major pharmacies, the Thorps called for accountability and further investigation. However, they cautioned against half-hearted efforts to take responsibility, citing The New York Times’ recent article about COVID-19 vaccine injuries as an attempt to “admit mistakes were made and play dumb while trying to frame the human carnage as limited.” However, they warned that what an investigation would uncover is “likely to be far darker and run far deeper than most Americans want to imagine.” EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Biden DOJ Files $50,000 FACE Act Lawsuit Against Another Group of Pro-Lifers
Favicon 
www.infowars.com

Biden DOJ Files $50,000 FACE Act Lawsuit Against Another Group of Pro-Lifers

The Biden DOJ announced a new lawsuit against Red Rose Rescue and Citizens for a Pro Life Society for alleged violations of the FACE Act just days after the sentencing of several peaceful pro-lifers in Washington, DC, including two elderly women. CLEVELAND, Ohio (LifeSiteNews) — The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration has announced a lawsuit against even more pro-lifers for supposed violations of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, as sentencing continues for nine pro-life advocates convicted last fall of the same. DOJ is seeking “compensatory damages, monetary penalties and injunctive relief” against the groups Citizens for a Pro Life Society and Red Rose Rescue, as well as against Laura Gies, Lauren Handy, Clara McDonald, Monica Miller, Christopher Moscinski, Jay Smith, and Audrey Whipple, allegedly for “engaging in physical obstruction” at two Ohio abortion centers, according to a press release. READ: Elderly pro-lifer Jean Marshall sentenced to 24 months, denied home confinement despite health issues “Obstructing people from accessing reproductive health care [abortion] and physically obstructing providers from offering it are unlawful,” said DOJ Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, citing the FACE Act. “The Civil Rights Division is committed to enforcing federal law to protect the rights [sic] of those who seek and those who provide access to [abortion].” Cleveland.com reports that the charges are based on two incidents, one in which pro-lifers entered Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls last June by falsely claiming to be patients, then began distributing roses to women in the waiting room and encouraging them to leave (five reportedly did so).Save 10% on ALL storable food and Alexapure Pro Water Filtration Systems! Secure your independence with our delicious kits TODAY to beat the coming demand! The next day, Miller and two others entered Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio’s Bedford Heights Surgery Center’s fenced parking lot, where one member distributed literature inside the building and others spoke to patients outside. One member allegedly knelt in front of the center’s entrance and refused to move. Police reportedly requested that the Planned Parenthood close for the day, as they lacked the manpower to handle the situation. The feds are seeking $20,516 for first violations and $30,868 for repeat offenses, bringing the potential damages in excess of $50,000. “Red Roses Rescues DO NOT violate the FACE Act,” Monica Miller, the head of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society who oversees Red Rose Rescue, responded in a statement to LifeSiteNews. “In an RRR pro-lifers never block anything or anyone – and if the Department of Justice is coming after us for our peaceful life-saving efforts it’s because they will simply play fast and loose with the FACE language having to do with ‘physical obstruction’ that prevents ‘freedom of movement.’”  “There have been 37 RRRs. We have NEVER been charged with FACE, and indeed, the RRR we did at the PP in Bedford Heights, June 5, 2021, one of the two that involves this DOJ accusation, all charges were dropped!” she added. “We have every confidence that through our great attorneys we will prevail over this bogus attempt by the weaponized DOJ to drag even RRR under its persecution of those who seek to defend the unborn from violence!” News of the new lawsuit follows a series of FACE Act convictions last fall against Handy, who is also named in the new case, and eight other pro-lifers in Washington, D.C. READ: Jailed pro-lifer held in prolonged solitary confinement suffers stroke As LifeSiteNews has extensively reported, the activists stood trial for blocking accessto the scandal-plagued Washington Surgi-Clinic late-term abortion facility in downtown D.C., in a “traditional rescue” in October 2020. Pro-life “rescues,” of which there were many in the early days of the pro-life movement before the FACE Act became federal law, involve physically entering abortion centers and refusing to leave in an effort to convince women to choose life for their babies.  Washington Surgi-Clinic is also where five late-term aborted babies were discoveredwho may have either been killed by illegal partial-birth abortion procedures or after live-birth. Sentencing began in May for the “D.C. Nine,” in which Handy was sentenced to four years in prison and the rest of the sentences so far have ranged from one year to 34 months. Pro-lifers criticize these and other prosecutions as forming a pattern of the pro-abortion Biden DOJ weaponizing the criminal justice system to crush its political enemies. Since May 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade was first leaked, “there have been at least 236 attacks on Catholic churches and at least 90 attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers,” the Daily Signal reports. Yet the DOJ “charged only pro-life activists with FACE Act violations in 2022, and has since charged only five individuals with violating the FACE Act by targeting pregnancy centers.” At the same time, it has zealously pursued incidents involving pro-lifers, from the D.C. defendants to Philadelphia sidewalk counselor and Catholic father of seven Mark Houck. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Controversial Lead Candidate Kicked Out of AfD’s Party Leadership
Favicon 
www.infowars.com

Controversial Lead Candidate Kicked Out of AfD’s Party Leadership

Several political allies have threatened the German party with expulsion from its parliamentary group over Maximilian Krah’s SS-relativizing comments. The scandal splitting the Brussels’ right-wing populist bloc is exploding as more member parties have distanced themselves from the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), demanding either its lead candidate, MEP Maximilian Krah, be kicked out or the party itself leave the Identity and Democracy (ID) group following Krah’s statements attempting to relativize Nazi crimes. Following the example of the French Rassemblement National, the Italian Lega party as well as the Danish People’s Party also distanced itself from Krah and AfD, threatening an implosion of the entire ID group if the matter is not solved quickly. As a result, AfD’s federal leadership decided on Wednesday (May 22nd) morning, that Krah must leave the party’s presidential board, effective immediately, as well as to bar him from having any public appearance “by whatever communication channel,” a senior AfD official confirmed to The European Conservative. Minutes after the meeting ended, Krah tweeted his own slightly more positive version. He began by saying that he was anticipating that his “factual and nuanced” statements about the Waffen-SS would be used against him, but, he added, the last thing AfD needs right now in the final stage of the EU election campaign is a controversy around the lead candidate. Therefore, he is resigning from the party’s executive board and foregoing any further campaign appearances. Man kann nie tiefer fallen als in Gottes Hand. Ich nehme zur Kenntnis, dass sachliche und differenzierte Aussagen von mir als Vorwand missbraucht werden, um unserer Partei zu schaden. Das Letzte, was wir derzeit brauchen, ist eine Debatte um mich. Die AfD muss ihre Einigkeit…Power up with Nitric Boost that’s now 40% OFF! This potent formula gives you the massive edge in strength and superior circulation for that unparalleled performance you've been looking for!— Dr. Maximilian Krah MdEP (@KrahMax) May 22, 2024 AfD’s regional delegations are also meeting later on Wednesday to weigh in on the issue, but the saga is far from over. ID’s internal crisis began on Tuesday, May 21st when Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (RN) announced it would not sit with AfD in the next mandate after Krah, the German party’s lead candidate, appeared to relativize the crimes committed by the Waffen-SS, the Nazi regimes’ infamous elite commando. Specifically, Krah said that not every SS soldier can be automatically declared a criminal, citing examples like Günter Grass, a Nobel Prize-laureate member of the organization. “Among the 900,000 SS, there were also many peasants: there was certainly a high percentage of criminals, but not only that,” Krah said in an interview published on Saturday. The fallout between ID’s two largest parties is further complicated by the follow-up announcement from Matteo Salvini’s Lega, the group’s third-largest member party, saying that it and RN are “perfectly aligned in agreement” that there’s no future for AfD in the ID group. The Danish People’s Party’s MEP Anders Vistisen, ID’s unofficial Spitzenkandidat also came out against Krah in a tweet, demanding AfD get rid of him if it wants to remain part of the ID. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Against a National Loyalty Divorced from the Sacred
Favicon 
www.infowars.com

Against a National Loyalty Divorced from the Sacred

Until the conversation orbits the sacrality of what Roger Scruton called ‘homecoming,’ we will be stuck with a politics of empty promises. In the UK, genuine conservatives hate the Conservative Party. The Party will lose the next election not because of the popularity of the Labour Party, but because of the contempt in which the Conservative Party is held by its own traditional voters. The Reform Party, which will pick up a good number of those voters, is—as populism goes—remarkably uninspiring. Many thoughtful small-c conservatives are growing aware of just how dangerous populism can be in any case. The fleeting success of Boris Johnson marked the Tories’ flirtation with the populist paradigm and just look at what the country suffered under that unprincipled oaf. Had a Labour leader botched Brexit like that and then placed the country under house-arrest, he would have been accused of advancing a socialist experiment and hounded into hiding. Johnson—‘the people’s Prime Minister’—got away with it simply because of the populist mythos that had been created around him. “He must be on our side,” so many thought, but he never was. The old conservatism is on its way out; populism can’t get a foot in. If it were no more complicated than that, perhaps a simple solution could be found to the crisis of conservatism, at least in these isles. But increasingly conservatives are questioning what it is they’re meant to conserve, when so much seems to have been swept away by relentless social repudiation. Then, of course, there are the subdivisions of ‘civilisational conservatives,’ most prominently the ‘Christendom conservatives,’ the ‘Enlightenment values conservatives,’ and the ‘individualist, free-marketeer conservatives,’ all of whom hold utterly irreconcilable conceptions of conservatism. So, what is the future of conservatism to look like? Among younger conservatives, I’ve noticed two camps emerging as some workable vision of a future conservatism is sought. Loosely speaking, there are those who look to ethnic identity on which to build the conservative case of the future, and there are those who look to the land itself. The former emphasises ethnic bloodline, homogeneity, and the importance of recognising the dynamics of human tribalism; the latter emphasises the land, shared territory, and the sense of belonging that dwelling together in a single locality brings about. Making such principles into exhaustive foundations for a future small ‘c’ conservatism will, I suspect, lead what is left of such conservatism down a dead end. But what the new conservative debate, which is largely a Gen Z debate—mostly online—has revealed is that one is expected to side with one or the other of these camps. The former think that the kind of shared territory we have is largely an effect of the ethnic community that has dwelt there for centuries, if not millennia. The latter think that if you dwell in a certain locality for long enough, it will shape you, and certainly it will shape the generations of whom you will be just one ancestor. At bottom, these budding conservative visions attribute to different sources a certain causal power for the establishment of something approximating nationhood.  Those who look to the land think that those who emphasise a shared ethnic identity are going to ruin any future for conservative arguments in the public arena by tarnishing them with what is, in their view, basically racism. And the former equally think that the latter are going to ruin any future conservative case by rooting it in non-scientific, empirically flimsy sentiments that amount to a belief in “magic dirt”—a phrase coined by the so-called ‘alt-right’ pseudonymous writer Vox Day. I myself have been concerned for some time about conservatism going down the path of racism, and have attempted a more personalist case for national identity; it has long been my hope that conservatives would help to bring an end to the 20th century, and not perpetuate it ad infinitum. Save 40% on our limited edition Brain Force Ultra that’s loaded with proprietary super ingredients! It seems to me that both groups are actually appealing to some sort of providentialism. Both think that as a nation comes about, it develops a kind of value—or to use the 18th century term, a genius—that is precious and must be protected. This emergence of nationhood should be seen as a gift, and induction into its ways should be viewed as the sort of initiatory passage from which our very sense of selfhood arises. Both groups are anxious about defending something that they deem to have intrinsic value. Probably much to the annoyance of some of my conservative allies, I am inclined to sympathise more with those who look to the land. Anyone who has rambled across the English landscape with a pack of hounds knows that the earth itself possesses a kind of sacrality that emanates forth into the souls of those attuned to its frequency. Unashamedly, I believe in ley lines and other cosmic energies that run through the earth, I believe that certain places have spirits that guard and protect them, and I also think that the saints—whilst beholding the face of God—dwell in the very places that they consecrated with their prayers and sacrifices during their lifetimes.  All that is to say, I believe that the world is a magical realm that theurgically participates in the celestial liturgy of the Godhead, but that this cannot be known by some intellectual ascent out of the world of experience. Rather, it can be known only by encountering reality in its most concrete, gritty actuality. In short, I believe in the enchantment of the skylark’s song and the night-time constellations, in the dance of the spheres and the upward hanging fungal fruits that might nourish or kill you. I believe that the interpretation of the earth that belongs to the desert cultures of the Middle East, however noble, is different to that which gave rise to Piers Ploughman and the works of Shakespeare. I believe in magic dirt because I believe in both magic and dirt, but I also believe that we are formed by that magic dirt—that it possesses a very potent causal power—and having been so formed we have become something unique and precious. A French Jesuit named Charles Bourgeois reported a conversation he had witnessed in the 1920s on Poland’s eastern border between a Polish nobleman and a Belorussian priest, the former being Roman Catholic and the latter Orthodox. The nobleman opined that in the life of the Christian what mattered was the learning of catechism and the habit of personal prayer; the Orthodox were, in his view, too attached to ritual and liturgy. Fr. Bourgeois recounted the reply of the Orthodox priest: Among you it [the liturgy] is indeed only an accessory. Among us Orthodox (and at these words he blessed himself) it is not so. The liturgy is our common prayer, it initiates our faithful into the mystery of Christ better than all your catechism. It passes before our eyes the life of our Christ, the Russian Christ. I do not introduce this anecdote to suggest that there is some necessary Christian case for any future conservatism, even if at bottom I do in fact think precisely that. Here, though, is not the place for that argument. The point of this anecdote—for my purposes, anyway—is that for the priest, his source of meaning did not spring from a set of abstractions or concepts, but from the traditions that incarnated his source of meaning in the place in which he lived. The only Christ he knew was the Russian Christ. So too, the only Christ the English should know is the English Christ, the Irish Christ among the Irish, the Polish Christ among the Polish, and likewise and so forth for any given people. And it seems to me that it is the underlying assumption of the Belorussian priest that should be that in which any future conservatism ought to be rooted, namely that a nation and its territory are correlative principles that together make up a corporate person—who can truly make the claims of a person. And just as the life of any person is sacred, so too the national life of this corporate person is sacred. As with any sacred thing, it can be desecrated.  Last year, when I flew to the U.S. for a debate, I watched on the aeroplane a documentary entitled Lakota Nation vs. United States. In many ways, it was a terrible film, with all sorts of garbage drawn from half-baked critical race theories (the climactic moment of the film was a Lakota Nation march of witness, in which the viewer is shown the ridiculous spectacle of Native Americans in traditional dress waving rainbow and trans flags). Nonetheless, the film’s merit was in its presentation of the historical struggle for the Black Hills that stretch from western South Dakota into Wyoming, and the intense feeling that this most sacred of mountain ranges for the Lakota Nation had been directly desecrated due to the greedy appropriation of it by the U.S. government. Well, equally, I want to suggest that the transformation of England by mass immigration and the colonisation of ancient cities and towns by people who want England’s spires to stand in the shadow of minarets should be felt by the English to be a desecration of something both gifted and holy. This is where, it seems to me, the conversation should be had: given that a nation is a natural good, that emerges providentially down the centuries, and may be considered a ‘sacrament of nature’ (in the idiom of Aquinas), should it be treated as possessing a kind of sacrality of its own? If so, I submit that all discussion of the good of the nation should be centred on this principle. Such a principle is not eccentric, for even the most reductionist, materialist right-winger raises concerns about unregulated or badly regulated immigration and the rapid transformation of his culture because his nation is at least sacred to him. All I am suggesting is that we treat such a sentiment as reasonable communally. And this, I suggest, is the real problem with the type of leader we have today. Take a look at Whitehall. Listen to what they say. Take time to listen to their speeches and interviews. These people think exclusively in terms of efficiency, outcome, and productivity—if they think of anything besides their own private ambitions. Nothing to them is sacred in itself, and that is why, according to my analysis of where the conversation about the future of nations should rest, generally speaking such people have absolutely no business being political leaders.  Ever since David Cameron launched his ‘Well-Being Report’ in the early 2010s, according to the Report’s criteria Northern Ireland has been consistently the happiest place in the UK. Yes, you read that right: the UK’s most economically deprived, religiously divided, war-torn region is also the happiest. How can that be? Well, Northern Ireland is a patchwork of extremely tight-knit communities living amid a spectacular landscape, and over 50% of the people attend church every Sunday (compared with 4% in England). Essentially, the Northern Irish are still sufficiently traditional, rooted, and communitarian enough to be happy, and they still renew those attachments in a covenant with God each week. Hence, the UK government’s own report on well-being condemns the entire individualist, efficiency-based paradigm of ‘human flourishing’ that our politics perpetuates.  Until the conversation shifts into one that orbits the sacrality of what Roger Scruton simply called ‘homecoming,’ we will be stuck where we are, namely with a politics of empty promises about immigration in the face of widespread frustration, on which nothing will be delivered because one eye is kept on GDP. The frustration with which such politics must contend will continue to oscillate between a now dichotomised ‘blood or soil’ narrative, both of which seem a dead end. Neither GDP, nor ethnicity, nor material conditions should be our primary focus, however important they may be as secondary considerations. Rather, the public conversation of the future must centre on the sacrality of place and the particular people who dwell there, and in turn the possibility of desecrating that place, against which there is a moral duty to be on our guard. All the politics of the future must become, and necessarily will become, mystical, for the alternative is oblivion. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Pope Francis Promotes Climate Cult: ‘Climate Change’ is Now ‘A Road To Death’
Favicon 
www.infowars.com

Pope Francis Promotes Climate Cult: ‘Climate Change’ is Now ‘A Road To Death’

The Pontiff continued to emphasize his belief in 'global warming' during a CBS interview. VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) –– Pope Francis has stated that the world is at “a point of no return” regarding climate change and is now on “a road to death.” “Unfortunately, we have gotten to a point of no return,” Pope Francis told CBS’ Norah O’Donnell when asked for his concerns about “climate change.” “It’s sad, but that’s what it is,” Francis said during an interview aired in full May 20. “Global warming is a serious problem. Climate change at this moment is a road to death. A road to death, eh?”  NEW @NorahODonnell @CBSNews intvw clip.#PopeFrancis says re climate change “we have got to a point of no return. It’s sad, but that’s what it is. Global warming is a serious problem.Climate change at this moment is a road to death. A road to death, eh?” pic.twitter.com/Mlb3XeNEXD— Michael Haynes ?? (@MLJHaynes) May 21, 2024 Continuing, he attested that the changing climate is “an artificial climate change, no? Something provoked, not the normal climate change, right?”Save 10% on ALL storable food and Alexapure Pro Water Filtration Systems! Secure your independence with our delicious kits TODAY to beat the coming demand! Francis has often invoked the term “ecological debt,” taking aim at wealthy or Western nations for disproportionately impacting “climate change.” This was noted by O’Donnell querying why Francis “placed blame on wealthy countries.” “In great measure, yes, because they are the ones that have more of an economy and an energy based on fossil fuels that are creating this situation, right,” Francis said.  While not naming any counties in particular, he generalized, saying that wealthy countries are those “that can make the most difference, given their industry.” But it is very difficult to create an awareness of this. They hold a conference, everybody is in agreement, they all sign, and then bye-bye. But we have to be very clear, global warming is alarming. A short clip of the interview conducted in April was released at the time, in which Francis criticized climate change skeptics as being “foolish.”  READ: Pope Francis: ‘Deniers of climate change’ are ‘foolish’ “There are people who are foolish, and foolish even if you show them research, they don’t believe it,” Francis responded when asked about “deniers of climate change.” “Why? Because they don’t understand the situation or because of their interest, but climate change exists,” he critiqued. The Argentine pontiff has made the topic of climate change or environmentalism one of the central ones of this 11-year pontificate, issuing two key texts in doing so: Laudato Si’ in 2015 and Laudate Deum in 2023.  In Laudate Deum, he issued stark calls for “obligatory” measures across the globe to address the issue of “climate change.” READ: Pope Francis calls for obligatory global ‘climate change’ policies in new document ‘Laudate Deum’ “It is no longer possible to doubt the human – ‘anthropic’ – origin of climate change,” the Pontiff wrote before later calling for mandatory alignment with “green” policies: If there is sincere interest in making COP28 a historic event that honors and ennobles us as human beings, then one can only hope for binding forms of energy transition that meet three conditions: that they be efficient, obligatory and readily monitored. Despite denigrating such high-level meetings during his CBS interview, Francis had been due to attend the COP28 climate conference in Dubai last November in what would have been the culmination of his climate activism. However, due to ill health, he had to cancel the trip less than two days before he had intended to leave. After many years of climate alarmism rhetoric from the Pontiff, in 2022 the Vatican officially joined the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the pro-abortion Paris Climate Agreement.  His actions have disregarded long-standing and repeated concerns from pro-life and family advocates, who continually warned about the climate activism movement’s alignment with pro-abortion and population control advocates and lobby groups. The Pope defended the controversial move of joining the Paris Agreement, saying that “she (‘Mother Earth’) weeps and implores us to put an end to our abuses and to her destruction.” READ: Arctic sea ice just reached its highest level in 21 years, and it’s going largely unnoticed Yet, Francis has previously been corrected by scientists who say the “Pope is getting terrible advice from some exalted churchmen who are seriously deficient in scientific knowledge.” While echoing Francis’ concerns that nature should not be treated with wanton disregard, independent climate researchers Tomas Sheahen and Hal Doiron warned that the Vatican was weighing into a debate on which it did not have the necessary expertise. READ: New documentary exposes climate agenda as ‘scam’ to increase globalist power and profit “The correct answer is clearly not a settled science on which Pope Francis can confidently rely for the definition of when CO2 emissions become a sin,” Doiron told LifeSite in 2016.  Sheahen suggested that under Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican advisers responsible “made sure that both sides of the climate story were heard.”  “Martino (Cardinal Renato Martino was head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences under Benedict) understood that there really is a scientific controversy going on, and hence you saw no sweeping Vatican pronouncements in those years. Benedict XVI’s staff understood and respected the proper role of science. In recent days and since giving his CBS interview, Francis issued a call for a “global financial charter” at the service of reducing “ecological debt,” in passages reminiscent of the passages of Laudate Deum. READ: Pope Francis calls for ‘global financial charter’ at Vatican climate change conference “There is a need to develop a new financial architecture capable of responding to the demands of the Global South and of the island states that have been seriously affected by climate catastrophes,” Francis said at a conference run by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

A 1996 Report About Taking Over Our Weather By 2025
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

A 1996 Report About Taking Over Our Weather By 2025

by Fed Up Texas Chick, The Tenpenny Report: Nearly 60 years ago, in May 1962, then US Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Southwest Texas State University, now known as Texas State University. In the speech, LBJ talked about his international travels and professed that the United States must […]
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

US Navy Warships In Red Sea Targeted By Never Before Seen Ballistic Missiles
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

US Navy Warships In Red Sea Targeted By Never Before Seen Ballistic Missiles

from Great Game India: During a media briefing on Monday, Cmdr. Jeremy Robertson, the captain of the guided-missile destroyer USS Carney, said that never-before-seen ballistic missiles targeted U.S. Navy warships in the Red Sea. The commanding officer of an American destroyer that has shot down deadly ballistic missiles claims that US Navy warships operating in […]
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Destroying Our Connection to God with Gene Editing Injections
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Destroying Our Connection to God with Gene Editing Injections

from Reese Report: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
2 yrs

Dershowitz Was Stunned After a Day in Court with Judge Merchan
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Dershowitz Was Stunned After a Day in Court with Judge Merchan

by M Dowling, IndependentSentinel: Retired Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was in court when Judge Merchan went “berzerk” this week because he thought Donald Trump’s witness attorney, Rob Costello, was looking at him contemptuously. Dershowitz called Merchan “thin-skinned.” Well, Merchan is seeing the case blow up, and he’s acting like one of the prosecutors. TRUTH […]
Like
Comment
Share
History Traveler
History Traveler
2 yrs

How Did George Orwell’s Life Influence his Literature?
Favicon 
www.thecollector.com

How Did George Orwell’s Life Influence his Literature?

  In Orwell’s famous essay “Why I Write,” he claims, “Between the ages of about seventeen and twenty-four I tried to abandon this idea, but I did so with the consciousness… that sooner or later I should have to settle down and write books.”   Orwell believed he was meant to write; it was not something he had a choice in. Rather, it was in his nature. It begs the question – what was Orwell doing between the ages of seventeen and twenty-four, and how did that influence his literature and later life?   From Boyhood to Eton  George Orwell photographed smiling. Source: The Wire   George Orwell was not born as such; his given name was Eric Arthur Blair. He was born on June 25, 1903 in India, the son of Ida and Richard Blair, who worked in Bengal as a Sub-Deputy Opium Agent in the Opium Department of the Indian Civil Service, a key part of the bureaucracy that made up the British Empire. He lived there only briefly, returning to the United Kingdom when he was one year old as his older sister Marjorie was to be educated in England, as was the custom at the time. Therefore, he spent the majority of his childhood in the Oxfordshire market town of Henley-on-Thames.   Orwell recalls his childhood home in his fourth novel, Coming Up for Air, where he describes “the great, green juicy meadows round the town… And the dust in the lane, and the warm greeny light coming through the hazel boughs.”   The bucolic paradise that Orwell paints in Coming Up for Air has long been considered by scholars to be influenced heavily by the impressions of his childhood. Michael Shelden notes in his biography of Orwell that “Like young George Bowling [the protagonist in Coming Up For Air] Eric was not really a welcome companion among the older boys.”   In many ways, he was a stray among the middle-class inhabitants of Henley-on-Thames. He was introspective and imaginative and found it difficult to make friends his own age. Furthermore, he was forbidden by his class-conscious mother from playing with their more working-class neighbors’ children.   George Orwell photographed as a child (on the far right) with his siblings. Source: The Shropshire Star   Class struggle and money would continue to be a major feature of Orwell’s life. In Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell described his upbringing to be “what you might describe as the lower-upper-middle class.” He went on to say that those in his class were members of the “landless gentry:” “People in this class owned no land, but they felt that they were landowners in the sight of God and kept up a semi-aristocratic outlook by going into the professions and the fighting services rather than into trade.”   Class in Britain is more complicated than the accumulation of one’s income. One’s class is really the product of one’s experiences, values, and education. Orwell’s family subsisted on his father’s £600 annual salary, which was not paltry in Edwardian England but certainly not a gigantic sum. However, his father’s career in India made him a colonist, and his parents’ insistence on his education at St Cyprian’s, and in 1917, his scholarship to Eton College (the most prestigious and expensive public school in Britain) meant that he was constantly surrounded by the upper-classes. This had a profound impact on him and can be seen throughout his journalism and novel writing.   Modern photograph of Eton College, Berkshire, UK. Source: Eton College   Orwell did not loathe Eton in the same way that he loathed St Cyprian’s. Scholar John Carey notes in his introduction to the Collected Essays of Orwell that “as a scholar, living among other scholars, he was insulated to a certain extent from humiliating comparisons.”   It has been documented that Orwell’s time at Eton reinforced several political and philosophical convictions he took into adulthood. Eton encouraged his brand of anti-intellectualism, his antipathy towards pacifism, and his admiration for the “military virtues.”   Most people recognize Orwell to be a vocal supporter of left-wing politics, and that is true; however, in many ways, his temperament was decidedly more conservative. It is most likely that, as a young boy, his opinions about social issues were formed at Eton. While there were watershed moments in his adult life that shaped his writing and beliefs, such as the years he spent in Burma (now Myanmar) and his time spent among the homeless in Paris and London, he kept a hold of a very specific brand of social conservatism that he most likely learned at Eton.   From Imperialism to Democratic Socialism George Orwell, colorized image. Source: The Big Issue   One would expect a King’s Scholar at Eton to go straight to King’s College, Cambridge to study Classics. Orwell defied expectations, instead joining the Imperial Police force in Burma. His lack of university education may, in part, have been due to a lack of funds; it might also have been one of his very first acts of class rebellion. However, it is also a move that we can assume stemmed partially from his father’s influence, who spent decades in the colonies. This career choice may also have been an attempt to regain some glimpse of his idyllic early childhood as he moved back East.   There is a lot of speculation about Orwell’s life in Burma. Much scholarship suggests that he was unanimously miserable in the colonies and saw right through the exploitation of the British Empire. However, it is safer to assume that Orwell was in two minds about his position of authority within the British Empire.   In his essay “Shooting an Elephant,” he describes his ambivalence in all its brutality: “I thought of the British Raj as un unbreakable tyranny… with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts.”   Orwell was critical of the Empire, but we must also acknowledge how much he benefited from it. After all, he rose through the ranks to become the head of the police force in Twante and is said to have had many enjoyable relationships with the native people, specifically the women he found there.   George Orwell photographed at the BBC, 1941. Source: BBC   Orwell left his career as an Imperial Police Officer in 1927, a move many have construed as an act of rebellion against imperialism. There might be some element of this; but it is also true that he was restless to write, to become an author, and so some of his motivation was selfish. As Shelden noted, “He was frustrated by the thought that he was so far away from the literary world.”   And so, Orwell returned to England, living with his parents in the rural seaside town of Southwold, vastly different from the rainforests of south-east Asia. He settled down there to write, and write he did; within a year, he was a published author, and within four years, he had finished his first novel.   Robert Colis says in his biography of Orwell, English Rebel, that Orwell “did not want to just write, he wanted to get under the skin of those he wrote about, as close to the grey-skinned experience as he thought he could stand,” and is clearly evidenced by his output.   George Orwell photographed at his typewriter. Source: The Independent.   Between 1928 and 1937, Orwell published many articles in the Adelphi, a literary magazine he regularly read during his time in Burma. He had researched deeply into the lives of the extreme poor, living as a pauper in London and Paris; his experiences would pour into Down and Out in Paris and London, finished in 1930 but not published by Gollancz until 1933 and Road to Wigan Pier, published in 19837, by the Left Book Club and then later by Gollancz.   Contrary to popular opinion, not everything Orwell wrote was overtly political; however, everything he wrote made some greater point about English society, class struggle, and the nature of art. Coming Up for Air and Keep the Aspidistra Flying are two novels that borrow much from Victorian realism; indeed, Orwell said in “Why I Write” that he had a desire to “write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes.”   Although not enormous by any means, Coming Up for Air and Keep the Aspidistra Flying both conform to this description. However, as Orwell himself delineates, “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism.”   From one War to Another George Orwell (pictured on the center right) photographed on the frontline in Catalonia. Source: The Guardian   The Spanish Civil War was to prove the most fundamental political experience of Orwell’s life. Orwell arrived in Barcelona in 1936 to pledge his allegiance to the Second Spanish Republic. He spent six months there, flitting between his wife Eileen and the Aragon front line, fighting alongside his Spanish comrades.   However, it all ended abruptly on May 20, 1937, when he was shot in the neck. He wrote in Homage to Catalonia that “roughly speaking it was the sensation of being at the centre of an explosion. There seemed to be a loud bang and a blinding flash of light all round me, and I felt a tremendous shock — no pain, only a violent shock.”   He spent almost a month in hospital and was lucky to survive. Little did he know that his near-fatal injury would be the last of his worries, as, on June 19, the Republican security forces of Spain identified him as a spy, and he was forced to leave Spain.   Orwell went to Spain as an out-and-out anti-fascist; he left it as an out-and-out anti-communist. It is his giant swings across the pendulum of political belief that often leave people confused as to his true political opinions. However, if there is one thing that Orwell remained throughout his life, it is his staunch anti-intellectualism.   What he saw in Spain, he also saw when writing Road to Wigan Pier, a socialism that did not need its “slick little professors” to tell it what it is. The next chapter of Orwell’s life was engulfed by the Second World War, although he did write Coming Up For Air in the intervening eighteen months between the end of his involvement in the Spanish Civil War and Chamberlain’s declaration of war against Hitler’s Germany.   George Orwell photographed at the BBC, 1941. Source: Historic UK   Orwell joined the Home Guard in 1940 and spent three years there. He was never required to fight; the closest he came to warfare was his experiences in the Blitz; poet Cyril Connolly, who spent one of the first nights of the Blitz with Orwell in his own Piccadilly flat, said of Orwell: “He felt enormously at home in the Blitz, among the bombs, the bravery, the rubble.”   Regardless of the destruction going on around him, Orwell’s career progressed significantly in the latter stages of 1940. In December 1940, he received an invitation to write from the Partisan Review, one of the most influential magazines in the United States at the time.   Furthermore, written in 1941, “The Lion and the Unicorn” helped to spread Orwell’s fame as an eloquent spokesman for democratic socialism. It expressed his opinion that the outdated British class system was hampering the war effort and that to defeat Nazi Germany, Britain needed a socialist revolution.   It was on the back of this fame that he was offered the position of Talks Assistant at the BBC. India had an army of over two million men, and Orwell was part of the effort to transmit propaganda to the sub-continent to encourage the view that Britain’s security was of vital importance to the Indians.   That Orwell would be so integral to the propaganda efforts of Britain, especially in the Imperial provinces, would surprise many who see his political novels as the very antithesis of such things. Orwell was willing to write such things because he believed that this job constituted his contribution to the war effort.   George Orwell photographed in the family home with his son, Richard Horatio Blair. Source: The Times   However, he soon realized that his efforts were futile. Shelden recounts that a survey within the BBC showed that, in a country of nearly three hundred million at the time, only 150,000 had the technological capacity to tune into the Eastern Service. Of these, probably only a handful were listening to anything other than the news.   The news affected him deeply, as Shelden recounts, he said privately: “Much of the stuff that goes out from the BBC is just shot into the stratosphere, not listened to by anybody, and known to those responsible for it, not to be listened to by anybody.”   It is these experiences that would later pour into 1984. The things he experienced at the BBC eventually proved useful to him when he drew inspiration from them for his creation of the nightmare bureaucracy of the Ministry of Truth. Having never worked in such an environment, it gave him enough knowledge of how organizations create justifications for meaningless activities and persuade many of their workers to take the work seriously.   Towards the end of the war, Orwell’s life was marred by personal difficulties. Orwell’s mother Ida died of heart failure, and Shelden argues that this may have been a catalyst for his yearning for a child. Orwell expressed in his private diaries that he had longed for a child but thought himself to be infertile, although Shelden has pointed out that it cannot be known whether this was true.   Eileen Blair pictured with son Richard Horatio Blair, 1944. Source: The Guardian   It is out of this grief that Orwell and his wife Eileen came to adopt Richard Horatio Blair. Michael Shelden notes that Eileen was initially doubtful of their decision to raise a child if they could not have one of their own. However, it became clear that both new parents doted on their new offspring, and David Astor, the infamous editor at The Observer, had the impression that George and Eileen were “renewing their marriage ‘round their new child,” as quoted by Shelden.   It was around this time that Animal Farm was published, a novel that led him to global fame and shaped the rest of his career. D J Taylor notes in Orwell: The Life that Orwell’s reaction to the success of this political fable was an amalgamation of satisfaction and unease. Although, in terms of wealth and literary fame, his life would never be the same again, he was nervous that a left-wing critique of Stalinism might be misrepresented as an attack on Socialism itself.   Largely, his fears came true, and the most enduring criticism of the book was that any kind of criticism of the Soviets was playing into the hands of the Nazis. Once more, D J Taylor recounts that Orwell thought that this phrase was “a sort of charm or incantation to silence uncomfortable truths.” What he had set out to do was simply make a forceful attack, in an imaginative way, on the sustaining myths of the Soviet Union.   1945 to 1984 George Orwell photographed close-up. Source: The Guardian   In the latter stages of Orwell’s life, his personal tragedies began to invade his professional career. In 1945, just as Animal Farm was gaining global notoriety, Eileen Blair died after an operation she was hoping would quell her ailing health. Orwell was abroad at the time; he flew straight back upon hearing the news.   Curiously, the idea that Orwell was not moved by the death of his wife has pervaded tales of their relationship. However, this could not be further from the truth. The letters he penned during this period show a shell-shocked and sorrowful man, inhibited by his own stoical disposition. He was left with a child to take care of and many regrets about the way he had treated Eileen at times. It would do a disservice, to Orwell but particularly to Eileen, to think of their life together as anything other than filled with love, although the love a troubled writer in the nineteen-forties has to give often leaves much to be desired by modern standards.   However, it was true that Orwell was keen to remarry. As Shelden notes, with a young child at his feet and a history of weak lungs, he felt a strong desire to be taken care of. According to Shelden, he courted many younger women in the aftermath of Eileen’s death, most notably Celia Paget, Sonia Brownell, and Anne Popham. They all refused him, mostly on the grounds that none of them found him in the least bit attractive or had the remotest desire to become a wife, all being in their mid-to-late twenties at the time.   Covers of various editions of 1984. Source: The Guardian   Eventually, however, one of the aforementioned ladies did accept his proposal. This took place four years’ later, in 1949, when Orwell was widely considered to be on his deathbed. Sonia Brownell married Orwell from his hospital bed at University College Hospital in London and were together for only a few short months before his death.   Although impending death loomed over Orwell’s last years, he did manage to finish 1984, and he did live to see its publication. The book’s publishers, Secker & Warburg, were haunted by the initial typescript, calling it “amongst the most terrifying books I have ever read,” as quoted by D J Taylor.   Just as with Animal Farm, there were concerns that the novel presented a direct attack on socialism in general and that the book was worth a million votes to the Conservative party, as D J Taylor recounts. In the face of such criticism, Orwell was always keen to stress that the moral was not strictly anti-communist but rather anti-totalitarian.   In the autumn of 1949, there were 25,000 copies of 1984 in print, and sales were booming in England and the United States. Although there were murmurings that the newly published novel had all of the hallmarks of a classic, Orwell would never live to see the rumors realized. On January 21, 1950, an artery burst in Orwell’s lung at the age of forty-six, and he passed away moments after.   Further reading    Carey, John. Collected Essays, ‘Introduction’ (London: Everyman’s Library, 2002). Colis, Robert. George Orwell: English Rebel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Shelden, Michael. Orwell (London: William Heinemann, 1991). Taylor, D J. Orwell: The Life (London: Chatto & Windus, 2003). Williams, Raymond. George Orwell (London: Penguin, 1971).
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 76638 out of 104348
  • 76634
  • 76635
  • 76636
  • 76637
  • 76638
  • 76639
  • 76640
  • 76641
  • 76642
  • 76643
  • 76644
  • 76645
  • 76646
  • 76647
  • 76648
  • 76649
  • 76650
  • 76651
  • 76652
  • 76653
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund