Talkin’ ’Bout My Generation X

As with every generation, pain is an exceptional teacher.

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness

I happened upon a recent Twitter exchange between Nate Hochman and American Greatness’ own Julie Kelly. It evoked a remembrance of youth and a reminder all politics is “local” and personal.

In that Twitter thread, Hochman announced he would be writing a piece “about why young conservatives are so much more radical than their predecessors. I have my own suspicions about the root cause, obviously, but curious to hear the thoughts of other young righties on here: why *are* we so crazy?”

To which Kelly replied: “Hope you ask how much influence their Gen X parents have :).”

Subsequent to the exchange, Hochman noted one explanation: “Have been chatting with some friends for the piece this week, and one viable explanation I’ve heard—consistent with my own preexisting ideas—is that it’s experiential: on campus, online and in the streets, young conservatives are just encountering a much more hard-edged left.”

As a member of Generation X, I chuckled at Hochman’s perception that his generation was considered “so crazy” compared to others. Growing up, the dominant liberal culture worried Generation X, my generation, was a sign that Our Democracy™ was doomed.

For generations, youth had been the exclusive domain of the Left. The Left cultivated and indoctrinated youth with their most radical beliefs. For a large segment of the Baby Boomers, this culminated the rise of the “New Left” in the later 1960s. The New Left’s narcissistic and nihilistic pursuit of a terrestrial Eden coercively wrought by the power of an omnipotent state led David Horowitz and Peter Collier to author a book designating the Baby Boomers as the Destructive Generation.

On the heels of the New Left’s chaos came my Generation X. While the oldest of us cast our first presidential vote for President Ronald Reagan in his 1984 reelection campaign, the Left was on to our political leanings well before that second Reagan landslide. For the first time in memory, the Left began attacking youth as callow and lacking in intellectual depth—despite the fact we watched PBS’ “Firing Line” with William F. Buckley and read his National Review (which was harder to find at a book store than pornography), and other conservative columnists and publications. 

Perhaps the culmination of the Left’s attacks on the youthful Gen X conservative movement was the one that most spectacularly backfired. Commencing in 1982, the television series “Family Ties” featured a family headed by former hippies with a son who was a Hollywood caricature of young conservatives, namely Alex P. Keaton (played by Michael J. Fox). Unfortunately, for the Left, rather than being mocked by the audience, the young Mr. Keaton became the show’s fan favorite.

In sum, it is almost impossible to explain to today’s young conservatives how shocking Gen X was to a Left that had never witnessed conservatism influence or instruct a significant portion of a generation. But it is also hard for Gen X conservatives—who remain America’s most conservative bloc of voters—to view Hochman’s endeavor to divine the reasons for his generation’s outré conservatism and do anything but knowingly smile, as did Kelly.

Regarding Gen X, the Left’s investigation of our political influences—however wrong and malicious—was more an exercise in rationalization for them. Gen X wasn’t conservative because we were greedy and ignorant, or emotionally damaged and confused latch key kids needing a grandfather figure named “The Gipper.” 

The leading edge of Gen X came of age in the 1970s. We saw the results of liberal policies, such as stagflation, gas lines, the Iranian hostage crisis, and communism on the march. Starting in 1981, we witnessed the results of conservative policies, a booming economy and peace through strength—“Morning in America” breaking brightly over the ebbing darkness of liberals’ benighted American “malaise.” In sum, Gen X saw that liberal policies didn’t work; and saw that conservative policies did. Thus, Gen X was the first conservative generation in memory.

All too often I hear that America’s youth have been indoctrinated by the “woke” Left; and, consequently, that there is little hope for preserving our free republic in the future. But as Gen X’s political consciousness was shaped by the disastrous consequences of the liberal Carter Administration’s failed policies, today’s rising generation’s political consciousness will be shaped by the disastrous consequences of the Biden Administration’s failed policies. True, not every member of today’s youth will reach the same policy conclusions and party destination just as not every member of Gen X became a conservative. But as with every generation—be it sooner or later—for the practical, pain is an exceptional teacher.

So, yes, Hochman is definitely onto something; and this Generation Xer wishes him Godspeed in talkin’ ’bout his generation.  

X22, On the Fringe, and more- June 26

 

Hope you've all been enjoying this incredible weekend! Here's tonight's news:

More Than a Stalinist Show Trial

Beyond the January 6 committee hearings,

 Stalinism advances on other fronts.

by Lloyd Billingsley for American Greatness

As Thaddeus McCotter contends, the reproduction of a “Stalinist show trial” is now live in Washington. That invites a look at the original production of 1936-1937, from one of the keenest observers at the time. 

“The Moscow trials, and the purges that followed them, were a turning point in the history of American liberalism, for it was irrevocably polarized by the controversies to which the trials gave rise,” explains the late philosopher Sidney Hook in Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the Twentieth Century, published in 1987. As Hook recalled, “news of the trials burst like a bombshell.”

The principal defendants were “all old Bolsheviks, Lenin’s comrades in arms, who had been glorified as heroes of the October Revolution until they fell out of favor with Stalin. Chief among the defendants was Trotsky, acknowledged by Stalin as the architect of the Petrograd insurrection that had placed the Bolsheviks in power.” 

As Hook wondered, “had architects of the great experiment been agents of the Western secret police?” The notion was “inherently incredible,” and the charges against Trotsky, Bukharin, Radek, and others were “mind-boggling.”

The heroes of the October Revolution, Stalin contended, had assassinated Kirov in 1934, 

planned the assassination of Stalin under the direction of Trotsky, and “conspired with fascist powers Germany and Japan to dismember the Soviet Union, in exchange for services rendered by the Gestapo.” They were also charged with “sabotaging five-year plans, putting nails and glass in butter, inducing erysipelas in pigs, wrecking trains” and so forth.  

All the defendants “confessed with eagerness,” but as Hook recalled, “equally mystifying was the absence of any significant material evidence.” Leon Trotsky, then in exile, “charged that the trials were an elaborate frame-up and defendants had been compelled by torture to play self-incriminating roles.” 

For American Communists and fellow travelers, the charges and confessions were all genuine. “My greatest shock,” Hook writes, “was the discovery that hundreds of liberals, proud of the progressive American heritage they had invoked in criticizing injustices in the United States, Germany and Spain, were prepared to turn their backs on it when questions were raised about justice in the Soviet Union.” 

The Dewey Commission of Inquiry, named for philosopher John Dewey, set out to determine the truth of the Moscow Trials. This commission “was spurned by liberals,” many of whom were swayed by Walter Duranty, Moscow correspondent of the New York Times. Sidney Hook was on to him from the start.

“At the height of the agricultural destitution and famine in the Soviet Union, brought on by the forced collectivization of the peasantry,” Hook recalled, Duranty “sent glowing reports about the state of the Soviet economy and countryside.” For Stalin’s best apologist, the Moscow Trials were 100 percent legitimate.

As The New Republic had it, Duranty “has been forced to the conviction that the confessions are true” and “it seems to us that the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Duranty’s views.” Trouble was, there was never any material evidence, even from Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev or any of his successors.

“If dark court proceedings were a rigamarole played out for some dark purpose of Stalin and his regime,” Hook writes, “then the promise of socialism was revealed as a mockery of the great humanist ideals.” The dark purpose of Stalin (Iosif Dzhugashvili) was to eliminate his rivals. In that cause, “Stalin was prepared to violate every fundamental norm of human decency that had been woven into the texture of civilized life.” 

For Stalin, “rewriting history was in a sense a method of making it,” and this involved “the denial of objective historical truth.” By agreeing that the trials were legitimate, American liberals legitimized Stalin and the Soviet Communist regime. 

That regime rejected the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and so forth, as so much “bourgeois” formality. The January 6 proceedings in Washington violate fundamental and longstanding norms of American justice. Witness the summary arrests, detention without trial, solitary confinement, denial of bail, withholding of evidence, and a lot more. 

Stalin aimed to eliminate his rivals, and the January 6 session targets Donald Trump, first and foremost. Democrats charge that Trump and his followers are guilty of an “insurrection.” The police shooting of Trump follower Ashli Babbitt, the only death by gunfire that day, is no object to the ludicrous charge. 

Stalin’s show trial boasted media defenders such as Walter Duranty of the New York Times. Duranty has been replicated by establishment media defenders of the current show trial. These are the same people who peddled the Russia and Ukraine hoaxes, with no regrets after both were proven false. 

Stalin charged that his fellow revolutionaries conspired with foreign powers. The January 6 proceeding maintains the fiction that Donald Trump got elected only by colluding with Putin, and that the American people had no role in his victory. The January 6 proceeding does not conduct audits or consider any evidence of voter fraud. It simply assumes that the 2000 election was the most secure in American history, with no comparisons of voter fraud in past elections. 

The Moscow Trials were all about Stalin, and it’s hard to exaggerate the veneration of this man by American academics, journalists and politicians. Sociologist Anna Louise Strong, for example, wrote in I Change Worlds that “one must not make a god of Stalin. He was too important for that.” At bottom, the January 6 proceeding is all about Joe Biden. 

By implication, the people of America were panting for a man who had achieved little if anything in all his years in the Senate. They wanted a man who has trouble with basic motor functions and memory; a delusional character who believes he served as a liaison during the Six Day War, when he was still in law school. America wanted a man who tells African Americans they “ain’t black” if they fail to support him, a man who says the Chinese Communists are “not bad folks” and not even competition for the United States. 

The Moscow Trials were also a diversion from the economic disaster Stalin had inflicted on the Soviet Union. The January 6 proceeding is a diversion from the disasters “Joe Incompetent” is inflicting on America. By implication, this is what the American people wanted. In the style of Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss, Joe tells Americans they live in the best of all possible worlds. The Junta’s Duranty squads chide the people for failure to recognize the great job Joe is doing. 

“The economy is strong,” claims government-controlled National Public Radio, “but voters aren’t feeling it.” Tiffany Cross of MSNBC complains that Americans are “more concerned with saving money than saving democracy,” and “high prices” cause people to be less interested in the “compelling testimonies and evidence” in the January 6 hearings. That is indeed a Stalinist show trial and under the Biden regime, Stalinist conditions are expanding on other fronts. 

The “Disinformation Board” of the Department of Homeland Security, briefly “paused,” is being recast under the leadership of Kamala Harris, the beneficiary of poontronage from Democrat queenmaker Willie Brown. Professional propagandist Nina Jancowicz will doubtless be singing backup, and as with the USSR’s Pravda, the truth will be only what the government’s board declares it to be. In the best Stalinist style, American history is also being rewritten. 

According to the “1619 Project,” critical race theory, and so forth, America is a bastion of racist oppression. Except, that is, for the revisionists’ tenured positions at prestigious universities and media outlets, except for their high-level government jobs, except for their six-figure salaries, except for their generous benefits and gold-plated pensions, except for their stock portfolios, fancy electric cars, beach houses, and so on. 

Like those arrested on January 6, 2021, anyone less than worshipful of the Biden regime is a domestic terrorist. The Biden Junta also applies that description to parents who object to the racist indoctrination of their children. If Americans thought the nation was becoming more Stalinist by the day, it would be hard to blame them. 

Meanwhile, for the Moscow Trials and Stalinism in general, Sidney Hook’s Out of Step is hard to beat. For the current Stalinist show trial, read Julie Kelly, a one-woman Dewey Commission digging deep for the truth.

Bill Barr: If You’re Appalled About Unequal Justice, Get Joe Biden Out Of Office

‘That’s what I tried to do — use one standard equally for both sides,’ the former U.S. attorney general told The Federalist Saturday.

by Joy Pullman for The Federalist

If Americans believe the U.S. Department of Justice is creating a two-tier justice system in the United States, “the proper remedy is to vote people out of office, including the president,” said former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr to The Federalist Saturday.

Asked what he did as U.S. attorney general to remedy the politicized use of the U.S. Department of Justice, Barr responded he had pressure from both the left and right to weaponize that department for political ends, and “the response to that isn’t tit-for-tat, the way out of this is to ensure one standard is used for everybody.” Barr said Donald Trump supporters expressed unhappiness that he didn’t move faster to bring Democrats to trial such as in the Russia collusion hoax, but “I wasn’t willing to do that without substantial proof that the law had been breached.”

“That’s what I tried to do — use one standard equally for both sides,” Barr said.

If Americans believe, for example, the White House pressured the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate parents unhappy with their school boards and unequally applied justice to rioters on the right as compared to rioters on the left, the “American Framers believed the check on that is political,” Barr told The Federalist. That means electing a president whose attorney general will not preside over a corrupt and unequal administration of justice, he said, as well as more impartial local district attorneys and prosecutors.

When reminded that means at least another two years of watching the U.S. Justice Department under Biden use its powers to prosecute Americans based on their political beliefs instead of the law, Barr nodded and replied, “That’s how the system works.”

Another check on the unequal administration of justice is the courts, Barr said, whose responsibility is to reject cases that are brought on political rather than legal grounds.

Barr spoke to The Federalist in Chicago, Ill. after giving a speech to a packed Christian conference hosted by the Issues, Etc. radio program. His talk reprised and extended his remarks at Notre Dame University in 2019, in which he argued that U.S. public schools’ systematic indoctrination of children against their families’ religious beliefs amounts to an unconstitutional establishment of religion and requires the remedy of full school choice.

During his speech, Barr noted he rarely read or watched corporate media while serving as U.S. attorney general because allowing himself to be influenced by their pressure “would prevent me from making the decisions that I felt to be right.”

Barr also spoke to The Federalist about the U.S. Supreme Court’s revocation of Roe v. Wade in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization issued Friday. He said the decision returns abortion to the voters of the states and that the states should therefore now assume the responsibility to legislate on the issue rather than leaving it to Congress.

Barr also condemned Congress taking onto itself prosecutorial powers in instances such as the Jan. 6 Commission as a violation of the American founders’ design for separation of powers between branches of government. He said the prosecutorial function is not a job for Congress, but of the executive branch, and that “oversight that’s too intrusive becomes Congress enacting a prosecutorial function.”

After his morning talk and a lunch, Barr, a practicing Roman Catholic, joined the sold-out audience largely stocked with confessional Lutherans in a vibrant hymn-sing inside the chapel of Concordia University-Chicago.

The Decision to Overturn Roe Shows That Chief Justice John Roberts Has Lost the Confidence of the Court's Conservative Majority

streiff reporting for RedState 

One of the things about yesterday’s Supreme Court decision obliterating the grotesque fiction that child-killing is a Constitutional right that struck even non-lawyers (thanks be to Heaven) like myself was the way that the concurring opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts read much more like a dissent than the way it was billed.

The objection that Roberts raises to the reasoning in Dobbs is that it goes further than Roberts believes necessary. He’s willing to uphold the Mississippi law but he would just update the Roe/Casey mess with another rule. He agrees with the critique of Roe by the majority but doesn’t want to get rid of a constitutional right to infanticide. Rather than right a wrong decision, Roberts would rather make the decision only a little less wrong.

Roberts’ entire concurrence is embedded below.

Roberts Concurrence in Dobb... by streiff at redstate

As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a Chief Justice’s opinion get a smackdown like this from other members of the majority he joined. Justice Alito succinctly summed up Roberts’ approach: “The concurrence’s most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach.”

It is only a few pages long, but to understand its significance, you need to read it.

Majority Consideration of C... by streiff at redstate

This is why I give more credit to Mitch McConnell (Love Him or Hate Him, Mitch McConnell Was the Key Man In Getting Rid of the National Shame of Roe and Casey) than to President Trump (Roe Is Dead, and We Have Trump to Thank for That). If Merrick Garland was on the Supreme Court, even with President Trump’s justices in place, the vote on Dobbs would have been 4-4. Based on Roberts’ concurrence, if he had to choose between striking down or upholding Roe, he would have voted to uphold it in its current form or with a 15-week carve-out for state intervention.

Roberts’ concurrence reads very much like that of a man who has lost control of the Court and the respect of his colleagues. The only reason I can see that Roberts concurred with the opinion is that he didn’t want to be repudiated by the Court in what will likely be the most significant decision of his tenure as Chief Justice.

Politico has an interesting piece on that subject headlined: The lonely chief: How John Roberts lost control of the court.

Yet, Roberts on Friday found himself alone. He tried to avoid the very fallout that he believed the court could have avoided by stopping short of overturning Roe, and seems keenly aware of how Americans view the Supreme Court. The court continues to drop in its approval ratings with the public and it can’t seem to escape the perception that the institution’s decisions are being driven by politics, not principle.

The snub Roberts suffered Friday would be humbling for any chief justice given the way in which abortion-related decisions bring a white-hot spotlight to the court. But it’s just the latest in a series of blows Roberts has sustained in recent weeks that have fueled doubts about his ability to manage an increasingly fractious court.

An earlier Politico article, What a Roberts compromise on abortion could look like, perhaps unwittingly points to why Roberts can’t lead a conservative majority.

While any ruling from Roberts ostensibly preserving Roe might temper the overall reaction to the court’s looming abortion decision, it would be viewed by many conservatives as just the latest betrayal of their movement and principles by the chief, who unexpectedly emerged as a swing justice on the court in a handful of major cases over the past decade. His decision in 2012 to join the court’s liberals and uphold the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate profoundly disappointed many activists on the right who were expecting Roberts to help deliver a crippling blow to Obamacare.

Roberts also joined a 6-3 decision in 2015 that allowed Obamacare’s insurance subsidies to keep flowing nationwide — a ruling Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed as “pure applesauce.”

Since then, Roberts provided the critical vote to block President Donald Trump’s efforts to repeal deportation protections and other benefits for so-called Dreamers. The chief also sided with liberals to hold off a major challenge to government agencies’ regulatory powers and even wrote for the majority in a 5-4 decision rejecting the Trump administration’s efforts to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.

The bottom line is they don’t trust him and don’t trust his finger-in-the-wind incrementalism. The Court is clearly being led by the Thomas-Alito partnership that is providing the willpower and guts to motivate the conservative majority to decide cases based on the law and not worry about what the editorial boards of the Washington Post and New York Times say.

The Madness of the Push to Vaccinate Children 6 Months to 5 Years Old

In this week’s discussion monologue, Neil Oliver outlines a recent push by U.S. and U.K. authorities to vaccinate children under 5-years of age.   Despite almost zero risk to their health from COVID-19 or any variant, in the U.S. the FDA has recently approved vaccinations for babies 6-months and older.

Mr. Oliver notes the risk vs- reward in this health protocol is ridiculous on its face.  There is no substantive risk from COVID19 to any healthy child or young adult, yet the government institutions of healthcare are seemingly blind to the medical evidence.   Oliver says, “leave our kids alone,” WATCH:

[Transcript] – In the USA they are jabbing babies with the COVID vaccine, six months old and upward.  Here in Britain the NHS has been targeting children at primary school – five to 11 years old – with posters and letters depicting those youngsters who submit to the procedure as ‘Superheroes’.

Smiling cartoon characters, children in superhero outfits, surely designed to persuade children as young as five years old that they might join the ranks of superheroes if they will just line up and bare an arm to the needle.

Looking for all the world like an invitation to a party, with large writing in bright colours, child-superhero branding and headlined – “Calling All Superhero Kids” – the blatant attempt to appeal to the fantasies of innocent children is clear.

The inference to be drawn by any child looking at such a poster is that they are lesser mortals – cowards even – if they would rather not take the jab.

That the NHS is targeting our youngest and most vulnerable in this way is, I say, morally reprehensible, unforgivable. Where in this shameful play on childish imaginations and urge to please is the compliance, demanded by the laws and ethical codes for informed consent, the necessary full disclosure of risks, benefits and alternatives?

And that is before we get to Advertising Standards Agency’s rules shaped to protect children from advertisers’ tricks. Among much else, it has long been the case that advertisers are not, when targeting children directly and specifically, to take advantage of, and I quote from the ASA rules, “… their credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience.”

Last week on this channel Mark Steyn drew attention to figures used by the JCVI – the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation – that estimated how many children would need to be jabbed in order to stop one person – just one person – being admitted to an Intensive Care Unit with Covid. That figure is two million children – each jabbed not once, but twice – to stop one admission to ICU.

The average age of death from Covid, calculated early on in the pandemic, was 82 years, the same age as national life expectancy or even older. In the last three months that figure for average age at death from Covid has risen to 85 or 86 years of age.

How many grandparents and great grandparents would countenance the injection of 5 year olds – and who knows, if we follow the lead set by the USA perhaps 6 month old babies – to protect those elders … from any disease … up to and including the Black Death? My hunch is not many.

So far only nine percent of youngsters in the UK aged between 5 and 11 have taken the jab – so that all is not lost – not yet at least. Remember anyway that it’s estimated three quarters of British children have had Covid already, and so have natural immunity.

And that much is before we come to contemplate the increasing certainty that the vaccines are, anyway, causing deaths and harms of all kinds, and in huge numbers. Long behind us now are the days when anyone could say any of the jabs prevent infection with Covid or transmission of Covid.

Last gasp claims that the vaccines reduce the risk of severe symptoms and therefore hospitalisation are similarly undermined.

But the Internet is still awash with people – from the president of the US on down – saying that if you take the jabs you won’t catch Covid, that you won’t transmit Covid, that you won’t die of Covid.

By any sane person’s assessment, that is Covid misinformation, and yet the so-called fact checkers, paid for by billionaire technocrats, and the media platforms themselves leave those erroneous, nonsense statements untouched while continuing to censor and delete reports of death and harm.

Health secretary Sajid Javid bragged last week that those vaccines we’ve had forced upon us so far are just the start. He tweeted that NHS patients would benefit from the “next generation” of vaccines thanks to a new deal with Moderna.

A state of the art mRNA manufacturing and global Research & Development centre will be built here in the UK. According to Javid, it will cement our “science superpower status” – so it’s not just five year olds who are supposed to swoon at the prospect of super powers.

While our Health Secretary celebrates a new deal with Big Pharma, let us consider the latest figures from the VAERS – Voluntary Adverse Event Reporting System – in the US. The latest data, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, showed 1,301,356 reports of adverse events experienced by all age groups after vaccination.

Remember too that it is a crime in the US to log false claims on the VAERS system, so that medics put their reputations on the line with every posting and are highly unlikely, to say the very least, to report nuisance or other likely erroneous claims of hurt. Among that figure are 28,859 reports of deaths and 238,412 of serious injuries between December 14, 2020 and June 10, 2022.

And yet now, while the figures rise concerning the risks associated with the present vaccines … while compensation is beginning to be paid out to victims’ families here in Britain, and while so much still remains unknown about the safety of mRNA vaccines, we are already invited by our Health Secretary to look forward to more of the same.

I said on this channel months ago that they should leave the children alone – but in my heart I knew they wouldn’t, and they haven’t.

These two years past have not been about taking care of people’s health. They have been about and continue to be about seizing and exploiting the control of the people themselves. Covid was used as a key, and it unlocked a door.

We have been isolated, divided and placed under house arrest. Many have had their livelihoods destroyed. We have been made to watch the economy driven off a cliff. We had our travel privileges revoked.

We have had our physical and mental health pushed to breaking point and beyond. Just as Covid ran out of steam, war broke out in Europe – a war with no end anywhere in sight. Now they’re telling us to once and for all bid farewell to coal, gas and oil to heat our homes and power our cars.

Everything everywhere is divisive, frightening, enraging or a mix of all three.

Apparently unstoppable illegal immigration on the southern coastline; fuel shortages, price hikes of hundreds of percent at a time.

The prospect of a summer of industrial action; travel chaos for millions. Most recently the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US and more riots in response. Division, division, division.

Take a breath and look at all of it: the fury and the hopeless impotence felt by millions of people is setting us at each other’s throats in every way imaginable. Like water flowing into cracks and fissures in rock, the fear must one day create so much pressure that the rock shatters. The more divided we become, the better it suits the agenda of those that would have us forget the world of before and just bend over ready to take it from the new world to come.

I say it will only get worse. Covid might as well be viewed as a dry run – or perhaps more accurately as an opportunity to probe defences in the minds of the public and so gauge reactions in preparation for the next, more determined assault. Isolated, frightened and angry people … cut off from work and social lives, trapped in their homes for weeks and months, turned to the Internet as a means to reach out to others, to find information different from the paid-for propaganda pumped out by the government and servile media outlets.

And what do we see now? – an Online Safety Bill. This, we are told, will clear out all that pesky misinformation and disinformation – which is to say information the government doesn’t like people seeing and hearing because it runs counter to official stories.

How very, very convenient. As one door closes, another one is slammed in our faces.

All over the world, under the cover of Covid darkness, new laws were passed in one country after another to limit the possibility of protest and dissent.

President Biden is already warning about the next pandemic. There’s Monkeypox – or whatever they decide to call it next – and most recently the discovery of Polio in a British sewer.

If they don’t seek to curtail yet more of our freedoms in response to a disease, they will surely try to have us submit to restrictions designed to save the planet, or stop the war in Ukraine, or whatever cause they can drum up next.

And now, as was always inevitable, and that could be seen from outer space if you had your eyes open, it comes down to our children. Adults have had some time to work things out for themselves, to take advantage of understanding and experience spread over years.

The brains of children are much more malleable, however, ready for imprinting and indoctrination. I have long wondered just how safe British schools are for our children anymore.

This latest scam by the NHS – calling all superhero kids – is only another glimpse among too many to mention of the enthusiasm for abandoning the need to teach children how to think and telling them what to think instead, what to do.  [VIDEO ENDS]

Look closely now and you can see another escape route for the uncooperative, the independently minded, being prepared for closure. For those uncomfortable with the education their children are receiving from their schools, home schooling has been an option. Away from an agenda pushed by the state, home schooling parents and guardians were free to nurture and encourage young minds in other ways.

Last month the government announced a new Bill to, and I quote, “level up education”. One way or another, I suspect there will be more control exerted over home schoolers, tendrils of control tightening, because this is about control, pure and simple.

It is about frightening people and keeping them frightened, and so infinitely more likely to take their medicine, real medicine or perhaps the cure for climate crisis, however bitter, who knows.

More and more it will be about our children. Their hearts and minds. The final obstacle to any totalitarian is always the family, and the protection afforded to children by their families.

They were always going to try and reach the children in the end. Whatever happens next – or indeed does not and must not happen next – is up to every one of us. (link)