No Longer Any Doubt That SCOTUS Is Corrupt

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), along with the suspicious "gifts" that some justices (particularly Thomas and Alito, and likely others too) had apparently accepted from influential "donors", leaves no doubt about just how crooked and corrupt the largely right-wing justices are.  From unceremoniously overturning Roe v. Wade (after literally promising not to do so!) to the striking down of Biden's student loan relief, and many other things in between, it is now painfully obvious that the SCOTUS is no longer even remotely fit for purpose.  And they are just getting started, it seems.

Biden of course needs to pack the court with more decent justices, FDR-style.  And the SCOTUS needs a major overhaul in general, not least in regards to their ethics rules. Yesterday is not soon enough!

How To Create A Deadly Plandemic In Five Easy Steps

The ever-insightful Joel Smalley of Metatron posted an excellent Substack titled, "How to Create a Deadly Pandemic in Five Easy Steps", complete with charts/graphs.  It was a classic "Problem, Reaction, Solution" (often incorrectly called "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" or "Hegelian Dialectic") scheme per the MO of the psychopathic oligarchs in charge.  To paraphrase Smalley as follows:

1. "Accidentally" release a fairly ordinary virus (ordinary because one's GOF abilities were quite inferior), that can only be detected with a special test (that is conveniently easy to manipulate), and then blame it on the Chinese (even if it was probably a joint venture).
2. Euthanize old folks, typically done with midazolam, and blame it on the virus.
3. Deny regular early treatment with antibiotics and corticosteroids, for those who one cannot easily euthanize.
4. Introduce a "cure" in the form of a novel and experimental "vaccine", which (oops!) turns out to be deadly in itself, and then have the GALL to blame it on the unvaccinated. 
5. Slowly and quietly re-allow the use of various antivirals and such that were previously mocked, discouraged, censored, or banned, in addition to antibiotics and corticosteroids, and then let the "vaccine" take credit for any improvements that result.

In other words, it was an iatrogenocide of epic proportions.  And he backs this up with correlations between various prescription data, "vaccine" dose data, "Covid" death data, and all-cause excess death data.  Such data are VERY damning indeed.  Now we can see the big picture, and all that went into it.

And it pans out quite accurately indeed.  Also, a Bangladesh study found that just three nutrients--Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Zinc--would have been enough to make the pandemic a non-event (at least if the pre-2020 standard of care had not been denied).

That, of course, was before the "vaccines".  And it should go without saying that any excess deaths and other harms that occurred after early 2021 or so could not possibly be disentangled from the "vaccines."

And of course, all the lockdowns, masks, and antisocial distancing were gasoline on the fire, as were the jab mandates and such.  While the five steps above could have still proceeded without these things, and with everything strictly "voluntary" per manufactured "consent", these things are very effective add-ons if one is going for maximum impact of a deadly plandemic.  They crank the fear factor up to 11, increase power and control by the oligarchs, divide and conquer the masses, and cause their own direct and indirect harms and deaths as well.

How will they ever live this down?

UPDATE:  Bonus points for the lockdowns, antisocial distancing, and related restrictions temporarily knocking out the competition from other, more benign and endemic respiratory viruses and allowing the more novel coronavirus to take hold more easily, while also perversely selecting for strains that were both more contagious and more deadly at the same time, AND also managing to build "immunity debt" to the temporarily suppressed viruses by the time they inevitably come roaring back with a vengeance. 

The lockdown zealots have a LOT to answer for!

UBI Is The Only Way To End Modern Slavery

Most of the objections to Universal Basic Income (UBI), from both the left and the right (usually the right), are fundamentally patronizing, paternalistic, and/or sadistic in nature, whether subtly or not-so-subtly.  Those are, of course, very easily debunked as void on their face in anything even remotely approaching a free and civilized society.  But what about the very few supposedly ethical objections that don't quite fit this mold?

One such objection to UBI is that it is really just "crowdsourced slavery", both within nations as well as (especially) with the imperialistic Global North continuing to exploit the Global South.  Or something.

Tell me, how exactly does one "crowdsource" slavery?  And if everyone is getting free money, and all work thus becomes de facto voluntary and optional, who exactly is really being exploited or enslaved?  How would anybody be able to economically coerce anyone else?

And how exactly can it possibly be any worse than the status quo?  (Don't think too hard about that.)

Even the biggest degrowth advocates like Jason Hickel openly support UBI, and he is certainly no imperialist shill.  Ditto for Charles Eisenstein and David Graeber.

True, UBI is unlikely to be global overnight, and will have to start at the national or subnational level.  A global UBI (especially directed primarily towards the Global South) would best be funded by a Tobin Tax on foreign currency exchanges, while a national, subnational, or local one would best be funded by seigniorage via national or local currencies, and/or Georgist-style taxation on the use of natural resources.  But until then, even a globally lopsided national-only UBI is highly unlikely to be any WORSE than the status quo, even if we do still maintain a sizable "trade deficit" in the near term.  In other words, if you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you ultimately end up with neither.

(Some may counter that they are really "making the necessary the enemy of the convenient", but that is really just begging the question.)

Over the lifecycle, we ALL subsidize each other to one degree or another.  Period.  And whether we like it or not, the globalization genie is out of the bottle, and has been for some time now.  And while all empires should of course go back to being republics, returning to complete autarky (whether it be national or small-scale autarky) is a practical nonstarter for the foreseeable future, so a new model of "alter-globalization," perhaps combined with some partial economic relocalization, is the least worst way forward.  (The scarcity mindset sure doesn't help.)

Until then, we need to meet people where they are at.

As for slavery, go look up your own slavery footprint under the status quo.  Go on.  I bet your hands don't feel so clean now, do they?

If you still feel guilty about receiving UBI for whatever reason, then by all means, feel free to to donate it to GiveDirectly then.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, silence is golden.

Bonus points for those who decide they now support UBI, even if only so they can now finally afford to buy ethically sourced, fair trade products instead of the usual cheap junk often produced by slave labor.  If you just spotted the glaring "collective action problem" in the status quo before I mentioned it, you are quite astute, and even more bonus points to you.

Honestly, NO ONE's hands are truly clean in the system we currently live in.  Except those at the very top (the oligarchs) and the very bottom (literal chattel slaves) of the global pyramid, we are all effectively varying degrees of slaves AND slavers at the same time under the global kyriarchy.  And some form of UBI is necessary, even if not sufficient by itself, to finally end this evil system for good.

(Mic drop)

Dear Congress, Stop Playing "Chicken" With The Debt Ceiling. Yesterday.

Dear Congress, 

STOP playing "chicken" with the debt ceiling (and thus the global economy) and pass a clean bill to raise it so we don't default.  Yesterday. 

Seriously, KNOCK. IT. OFF.

Better yet, simply abolish the silly concept of the "debt ceiling" that NO other country in the world has.  It serves NO useful purpose except as a political cudgel, which means it has NO useful purpose at all.

If not, the President would have no choice but to either 1) default on its debt obligations, which clearly flies in the face of the Constitution and would be utterly disastrous for the global economy, 2) invoke the 14th Amendment and simply ignore the debt ceiling, or 3) #MintTheCoin, that is, mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin so the government can still pay its bills. Actually, the latter option really wouldn't be a bad idea, come to think of it.

Sincerely, 

Literally everyone with at least half a brain

How To Reduce Gun Violence Without Violating The Second Amendment

How to reduce America's horrible gun violence problem without violating the Second Amendment?  Here is a partial list if ways to keep such dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners all the same:

• Do a massive, voluntary gun buyback program.  And yes, when done at a large enough scale and paying enough for it to be worth one's while, these things actually do work.
• Follow something like the Massachusetts model on the federal level (things like gun licensing, universal background checks, red flag laws, and a reinstated assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban).
• Apply the RICO law to street gangs.
• Additional penalties for gun carry during a felony.
• Put a tax on bullets, like comedian Chris Rock advocated.  Expensive bullets = no innocent bystanders.

None of these things actually violate the letter or spirit of the Second Amendment in any way, by the way.  Remember, the best part of the Second Amendment is where it says, "well-regulated".

Stephen Hawking Warned Us About It. We Need To Listen Yesterday!

Years ago when he was still alive, the late genius theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking made a terrifying prediction, namely that the prospect of uncontrolled superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) is at least as much of an existential threat to humanity as climate change.  And that really says something!

Alas, we still don't seem to be listening, let alone heeding his wise advice.  There is no way to sugar coat this hard-to-swallow pill.  If AI grows any more powerful than it currently is (that is, more powerful than GPT-4) before we learn how to fully control it, and it becomes uncontrollable, it would truly be an existential threat to humanity, civilization, and planet Earth (and possibly even beyond).  Not just in the distant future, but also sooner than one may think, at the rate things are currently going.  Even as a best case scenario, uncontrolled AI would make literally every single current problem in the world far worse before it would make it better.  I repeat, that's the best we could hope for, and it goes downhill from there.  I mean, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's not like anyone would be able to, you know, outsmart it any longer if it ultimately becomes orders of magnitude smarter than even Stephen Hawking himself.

The TSAP thus supports recent calls to put a minimum six month global moratorium on any further AI development beyond GPT-4, period, no exceptions.  And ideally, this moratorium would be indefinite, but six months would still buy us time.  THIS is what things like the precautionary principle and Pascal's Wager were literally designed for.  That is, we would be in a far less precarious position (by orders of magnitude) if we "overreact" and shut it down yesterday, than we would if we were to foolishly let AI get out of control and it becomes too late to control it.  There is literally no comparison between the two.

We ignore such risks at our peril.  Don't say we didn't warn you!

Just Say NO To The WHO Pandemic Treaty!

The TSAP has previously noted that the WHO Pandemic Treaty (currently pending ratification) is problematic at best, both in what it contains, as well as what it lacks.  Now we are learning even more about why the USA should NEVER sign onto it, especially the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in conjunction with it.  In classic textbook Orwellian doublespeak fashion, the text contains a very disturbing section that purports to preserve and honor national sovereignty, but actually ends up doing the exact opposite, as can be seen in the extremely elastic wording below:

4.3 of the Treaty
"3. Sovereignty – States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries. Sovereignty also covers the rights of States over their biological resources."

Wow.  Read between the lines once again.  The part in bold is the absolute worst kind of Orwellian sophistry, in that all someone would have to do is argue in a tortured fashion that it is like having a "designated peeing section in a swimming pool" (apologies to the late George Carlin) for nations to refuse to implement WHO diktats including, but not limited to, travel restrictions, lockdowns, closures, mask mandates, or jab mandates/passports.  The Constitution be damned, of course, as this treaty doesn't even allow for the usual "subject to constitutional limitations" qualifiers found in typical international treaties.  And also the collateral damage to people from such measures would predictably be ignored by the powers that be.

To put it bluntly, if the USA does sign the treaty, then we as a nation would effectively be signing away our national sovereignty to the WHO.  And we must never do that.  Once we do, there is NO turning back!

At a minimum, the USA must add a reservation to the treaty striking the bold text entirely and adding "subject to constitutional limitations", as a condition for signing and ratification.  Better yet, the USA should denounce the treaty entirely and refuse to sign it.  

Worse still, as a News Uncut Substack article notes, "the proposed amendments remove an existing IHR paragraph which protects “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” Translated, that means you could lose liberty and bodily autonomy; anyone who refused a mandatory vaccine could be banned from travel, work or even shopping. No digital health passport, no life."

Very telling indeed.  All the more reason to reject this utterly terrible treaty wholesale, period.