John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© July 31, 2022
Oft times when joining a Social Media Platform Group I am asked to provide an introduction of myself. I have short sentence memorized for this purpose: “I’m a Christian, Conservative-Patriot and Counterjihad Blogger.”
I mention this because the “Counterjihad” portion has taken a very backseat in these days of Globalist/Dem-Marxist tyranny against traditional American values and Biblical Christianity. If you would ever look at my earliest days as a Blogger on my two blog (SlantRight 2.0 [And archival SlantRight] and NCCR) it seems to me that nearly 90% of the posts were related to Counterjihad. This was largely due to a huge sense of outrage into a group of Wahhabist-Islamic Terrorists calling themselves Al Qaeda hijacked jetliners and used them as missiles on American soil. I was further angered by the more I read through Islam’s revered writings (not just the Quran) the more I understood that religion specifically aimed violence toward Christians and Jews by attacking their central tenets of faith. If a Muslim tells you otherwise, they are either lying or being lied to themselves.
HOWEVER, with the emergence of Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Hussein Obama – Some embedded source links in this 2013 post have stopped working, interestingly some still function: “Presidential Liar and Abuse of Power”) hoodwinking then brainwashing Americans, my focus began to slowly leave Islam as a central threat to a very evident trojan threat of Dem-Marxist transformation to a Cultural Marxist society.
Barry Soetoro Columbia University Student ID
AND that brings me to a post I just read at the Gatestone Institute (GI). I originally subscribed at GI to keep up with Counterjihad information. A July 31 post focuses on countering today’s tyranny: “The Antidote to Tyranny is Liberty, Not Democracy or International Government.” It looks like GI is recognizing also American Liberty faces a huge threat and the Dem-Marxists and Globalists brainwashing use of the concept of “Democracy” is addressed a part of that tyranny. I’ll cross post it or you can click the GI link.
Also a post at the Activist Post by Derrick Broze addresses an issue I’ve been running into on various Social Media about those numerous DNA private companies touting a path to trace your family tree or as a side gig provide COVID testing kits might for the idiocy of profits be selling or providing your DNA profile to the CCP (that would be the Chinese Communist Party) for nefarious bioweapon implementation. Hmm… The irony that Gain of Function research related to SARS disease (choke COVID) was booted from U.S. labs to the Wuhan lab controlled by the CCP that brought COVID to the world should raise some eyebrows with this DNA to the CCP scenario. A recent study is back to the claim of the Wuhan Wet Market origin. That seems off to me because a majority of studies show the current version of COVID emerged from a Chinese bat located quite some distance from the Wuhan Market, while the recent study cites COVID in Wet Market creatures, none are a bat. The title: “How Your DNA Tests Could Make You a Target for Bioweapons.”
[As a Blogger I share information that I read from others. Statistically I do not produce the big-dog readership that those who do this for a living. I do have about a 100 to 150 readers a day. The economic situation I am running into post-COVID fearmongering is a lack of support. My situation is funding to pay for subscriptions utilized for research. Without support, my paradigm will have to change. With just days left in the month, I pray your support is forthcoming. SUPPORT CAN BE RECEIVED VIA MY PAYPAL ACCOUNT (Check Card, Credit Card or PayPal).]
READER SUPPORTED! I need Readers willing to chip in $5 – $10 – $25 – $50 – $100. PLEASE I need your generosity. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
The Antidote to Tyranny is Liberty, Not Democracy or International Government
By J.B. Shurk
July 31, 2022 5:00 am
- When presidents and prime ministers make and enforce their own laws under the pretext of “emergency powers,” then citizens should not be surprised when their leaders discover an endless supply of “emergencies” requiring urgent action.
- The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, but rather liberty and individual rights. Is it not startling, then, that Western leaders extol democracy, yet pay such little homage to personal freedoms?
- Yet freedom, liberty, and individual rights are rarely mentioned. In their stead, political leaders cherish the “virtues” of democracy and little else. It is as if a linguistic sleight of hand has robbed Western citizens of their most valuable heritage.
- Is it not strange that Western leaders laud democracy over authoritarianism while simultaneously diminishing the power of their voters and strengthening the authority of foreign institutions [such as the EU, the UN, and the WHO]? Shouldn’t “democratic” nations decide their own fates?
- Why should bigger, broader forms of international government, however, be seen as more virtuous and less corrupt than their national forms?…. For that matter, had Hitler’s Nazi Party succeeded in conquering all of Europe, would his “European Union” have deserved greater legitimacy than the national governments of Poland, Belgium, or France?
- When national populations are denied self-determination and personal liberties are treated as privileges, not rights, then tyranny is never far from taking hold.
Constitution – WE THE PEOPLE (Image source: iStock)
Political language manipulates political debate. Abortion opponents who define themselves as “pro-life” semantically render abortion proponents as “pro-death.” Abortion supporters who define themselves as “pro-choice” semantically render any opposition as “anti-choice.” Who wants to be “pro-death” or “anti-choice,” after all? Such is the nature of politics. Words are weapons: when wielded deftly, they shape the battlespace for our minds.
So what does it mean when Western leaders these days speak so much of democracy but so little of individual rights? Or that they preach the virtues of international institutions, while demonizing nationalism as xenophobic and dangerous? It means that national sovereignty and natural, inviolable rights are under direct attack throughout the West.
It has become rather common for European and American politicians to divide the world between “democratic” and “authoritarian” nations, the former described as possessing inherent goodness and the latter declaimed as threatening the planet’s very existence. Of course, after two-plus years of COVID-19-related mask, vaccine and travel mandates, often imposed in the West through unilateral executive or administrative action — and not through legislative will or public referendum — it is somewhat difficult to assert that democratic nations are free from authoritarian impulse.
When presidents and prime ministers make and enforce their own laws under the pretext of “emergency powers,” then citizens should not be surprised when their leaders discover an endless supply of “emergencies” requiring urgent action. Should that truth be in any doubt, one need only look to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s iron-fisted decision to quell truckers’ peaceful Freedom Convoy protests against experimental vaccine mandates earlier this year by confiscating bank accounts and effecting forceful arrests with little regard for due process or respect for Canadians’ free speech. Trudeau’s declared “emergency” trumped Canadian citizens’ personal rights.
It is also true that democracy in and of itself is no guarantee for a noble and just society. In a properly functioning democracy of one hundred citizens, fifty-one can vote to deny the other forty-nine property, liberty, and even life. Should a member of the minority find himself enslaved to the state or slated for execution simply because the majority wish it so, he will not be singing the praises of democracy while his neck is squeezed within the noose.
Principles of federalism (where sovereign government jurisdiction is divided between a central authority and its local, constituent parts) and separation of powers (where the judicial, legislative, and executive functions of government are divided among distinct and independent branches) provide strong checks against the concentration and abuse of too much power.
However, it is the West’s traditional embrace of natural rights that exist apart from and superior to constitutional authority that create the greatest protection against unjust government power (democratic or not). When natural rights are viewed as inviolable, as they are in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, free speech cannot be censored simply because it is speech with which the government disagrees. When private property ownership is understood as an inherent right possessed by individuals, Trudeau could not so easily go after private bank accounts whenever he might choose to declare an “emergency.” When individual natural rights are seen as mere “gifts” from the government, though, they quickly disappear whenever government actors find it expedient.
It is increasingly common to see individual rights attacked as “selfish” and contrary to the “common good.” Should government leaders convince citizens that personal rights do not exist, or that they should not exist, then authoritarian governments embracing various shades of communism or fascism will come knocking on the door.
The rule of law does not excuse tyranny simply because what is unjust was democratically enacted. If any voting minority is vulnerable to the whims of the majority, then to that minority a democratic government feels exceedingly authoritarian, too. And should your life, liberty, or property be on the line, you might very well prefer the judgment of a benevolent dictator to the demands of a vengeful, yet “democratic,” mob.
The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, but rather liberty and individual rights. Is it not startling, then, that Western leaders extol democracy, yet pay such little homage to personal freedoms? Surely Western Civilization should honor hard-fought victories for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and free will. Surely the advancement of human liberty should be celebrated as a triumph of reason and rationality over feudal systems of power and their imperious forms of control. Surely any “free” society distinguishes itself from authoritarian regimes through its steadfast protection of inviolable human rights that exist irrespective of statutory law. Yet freedom, liberty, and individual rights are rarely mentioned. In their stead, political leaders cherish the “virtues” of democracy and little else. It is as if a linguistic sleight of hand has robbed Western citizens of their most valuable heritage.
If Western political leaders have used rhetorical voodoo to replace “individual liberty” with vague notions of “democracy,” they have relied upon a similar witchcraft to replace national sovereignty with international forms of government. What are the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Health Organization if not institutional structures for weakening the individual voting power of a nation’s citizens by handing once sovereign national powers to non-citizens?
Is it not strange that Western leaders laud democracy over authoritarianism while simultaneously diminishing the power of their voters and strengthening the authority of foreign institutions? Shouldn’t “democratic” nations decide their own fates? If not, if they must yield to the authority of the EU, UN or WHO, can individual nations still claim to be governed democratically?
“Nationalism” these days has been reduced to a disparaging word, as if anything done in the interests of one particular nation is inherently suspect. Citizens who express patriotic pride in their culture and national history are often rebuked as parochial or downright bigoted. Political movements that champion national self-determination (such as President Trump’s MAGA coalition in the U.S. and Brexit in the U.K.) are routinely ridiculed as “fascist” or “neo-Nazi.” Even when they achieve victory in democratic elections, they are nonetheless labeled “threats” to democracy.
Why should bigger, broader forms of international government, however, be seen as more virtuous and less corrupt than their national forms? When the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire, did its international institutions become inherently more trustworthy? When the Holy Roman Empire united much of Europe, did its emperors seem less authoritarian? For that matter, had Hitler’s Nazi Party succeeded in conquering all of Europe, would his “European Union” have deserved greater legitimacy than the national governments of Poland, Belgium, or France?
Surely it is just as absurd to praise international institutions over national governments without regard to the forms they take, as it is to praise democracy without regard for personal freedoms and individual rights. Surely it is easier to keep an eye on the actions of a local politician than it is to hold accountable a government official far away in Washington, D.C., New York City, Brussels, or Geneva. Yet international bodies are accorded tremendous respect today, while national bodies are frequently treated with disdain. It is as if national sovereignty has been demolished because the votes of democratic nations cannot be trusted to serve international interests. When Western leaders are all parroting the language of the World Economic Forum, it does not seem as if they are taking their marching orders from their own voters. Deferring to unelected, untransparent, unaccountable organizations seems a rather odd way to fight authoritarianism.
When national populations are denied self-determination and personal liberties are treated as privileges, not rights, then tyranny is never far from taking hold. Hiding that reality behind manipulations of language does not change its potent truth. It just forestalls contentious political battles for a later, more explosive day.
JB Shurk writes about politics and society.
© 2022 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not obtained ergo if asked, the cross post will be truncated]
How Your DNA Tests Could Make You a Target for Bioweapons
JULY 30, 2022
In the latest warning regarding DNA testing, two US Representatives have warned that DNA testing could lead to gene-specific bioweapons.
On July 22, U.S. Representative Jason Crow and Senator Joni Ernst spoke of the dangers posed by “bioweapons” targeting specific populations based on their DNA. The statements from Crow and Ernst happened at the Aspen Security Forum during a panel titled “National Security Today: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities”.
Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and member of the House Intelligence Committee, chastised younger Americans for being too eager to give up their genetic code to private companies who offer DNA testing services.
“People will very rapidly spit into a cup and send it to 23andMe and get really interesting data about their background,” Crow stated. “And guess what? Their DNA is now owned by a private company. It can be sold off with very little intellectual property protection or privacy protection and we don’t have legal and regulatory regimes to deal with that.”
Crow went on to say that a conversation around privacy must acknowledge that “expectations of privacy have degraded over the last 20 years”, and “young folks actually have very little expectation of privacy, that’s what the polling and the data show.”
Beyond concerns of privacy and who owns your DNA, Crow also warned that the DNA data is “going to be procured and collected by our adversaries for the development” of weapons systems that target a specific DNA trait or category.
“You can actually take someone’s DNA, take, you know, their medical profile and you can target a biological weapon that will kill that person or take them off the battlefield or make them inoperable,” Crow warned at the Aspen Security Forum.
During the panel Senator Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, focused her comments on concerns that enemies of the United States might use similar technology to target animal agriculture and crops.
“If we look at food security, and what can our adversaries do with biological weapons that are directed at our animal agriculture, at our agricultural sector?” Ernst asked.
The senator went on to warn about weaponized versions of the flu.
“Highly pathogenic avian influenza, African swine fever, all of these things have circulated around the globe, but if targeted by an adversary, we know that it brings about food insecurity. Food insecurity drives a lot of other insecurities around the globe.”
The warnings regarding DNA testing are not the first to make the news. In July 2019, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson also warned against using the home testing kits. “Be careful who you send your DNA to,” Richardson said at an event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, “There’s a number of those companies where you can go and find out what your makeup is. That’s a lot of information.”
“You learn a lot about yourself, and so does the company who’s doing it,” Richardson added.
By December 2019, Yahoo News reported on a memo sent to members of the military stating that information collected by private companies could pose a security risk.
“Exposing sensitive genetic information to outside parties poses personal and operational risks to Service members,” says the memo signed by Joseph D. Kernan, the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and James N. Stewart, the assistant secretary of defense for manpower.
“These [direct-to-consumer] genetic tests are largely unregulated and could expose personal and genetic information, and potentially create unintended security consequences and increased risk to the joint force and mission.”
COVID19 and DNA Testing
In April 2021, I reported on another claim regarding DNA testing, this time from U.S. intelligence officials, warning against providing health data to Chinese company BGI Group, the largest biotech firm in the world. CBS 60 Minutes reported that shortly after the COVID-19 panic began, BGI had discussed building COVID-19 test labs in at least six states, including New York and California.
The fear is that BGI or a similar company with ties to Chinese intelligence might gather DNA via COVID-19 tests to use for their ongoing genome research. US intelligence officials also said a foreign entity could learn about a person’s current or future medical conditions by studying their DNA and using this information to gain a monopoly over necessary drugs and treatments.
Concerns around BGI also arose in late January 2021 when Reuters reported that more than 40 publicly available documents and research papers show BGI’s links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Reuters said the research dealt with topics as varied as mass testing for respiratory pathogens to brain science.
Journalist Natalie Winter of National Pulse also uncovered documentation of a relationship between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and BGI going back nearly a decade. Winter found a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Gates Foundation and BGI to “form a collaboration on global health and agricultural development with the goal of achieving common objectives in health and agricultural development.”
Specifically, this collaboration deals with developments in human, plant, and animal genomics, the study of DNA. In the press release for the MOU, the co-founder of BGI directly mentions the partnership as focused on genomics.
“BGI looks forward to partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this significant collaboration to apply genomics research to benefit global human health,” said Dr. Huanming Yang, Chairman and Co-Founder of BGI.
Bill Gates also visited BGI headquarters in 2010, according to a report from the Financial Times. The Times stated that BGI “is working towards a goal of building a huge library based on the DNA of many millions of people.” BGI’s goal is to use this information for new drugs, genetic research, and “transforming public health policy”.
The danger of COVID-19 tests being used as a method for gathering genomic data on the unsuspecting public is part of a larger conversation about the dangers posed by genealogy companies generally.
Millions of people around the world have voluntarily submitted their DNA in exchange for information about their ancestry. The vast majority of the users of these companies, such as Ancestry and 23andMe, do not read the Terms of Service which outline how the genealogy firms can use the data.
While there are clearly reasons to be concerned about the influence of the Chinese government and what they might do with your DNA, the reality is most governments with the resources will likely seek to mine DNA as well. This absolutely includes the United States government, military, and private companies.
This includes 23andMe, the company explicitly mentioned by Representative Jason Crow.
In the January 2021 60 Minutes report, Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, answered questions regarding her company’s use of the data they are collecting. While Wojcicki says that her company has “empowered individuals with this opportunity to come together, to crowd source research”, she doesn’t shy away from acknowledging that her company plans to use the information to develop drugs.
“And I absolutely stand behind: we are going to develop drugs. So that everyone is actually benefiting from the human genome. So absolutely the data is valuable,” Wojcicki told 60 Minutes.
While she says she agrees that Americans should be concerned about China’s investments in genomic research, she believes the answer is for the United States to invest in genetic programs.
Wojcicki and 23andMe have faced their own criticisms regarding how they use the data and whether the public can truly expect records of their DNA to be safe. In February 2021 it was announced 23andMe would become a publicly traded company with help from billionaire Richard Branson. The Guardian noted that Branson’s Virgin Acquisition Group said 23andMe and their “vast proprietary dataset” of DNA would allow Virgin to “unlock revenue streams across digital health, therapeutics, and more”.
As I previously reported, Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, is the sister of Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube. Additionally, Anne Wojcicki’s husband until 2015 was Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google and president of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, until December 2019. Google also owns YouTube.
There appears to be a web of connections between the DNA collection and testing companies, Chinese intelligence, foundations such as the Gates Foundation, Big Tech, and, of course, the U.S. government. The reality is that the U.S. military is just as passionate about developing DNA specific weapons.
For example, the infamous DARPA has been working on various genomic research projects, including attempting to “hack” the DNA of insects for warfare. Most recently, DARPA awarded $5 million to DNA Script to work with Moderna on the development of a prototype system for mobile therapeutic and vaccine manufacture.
For the millions of Americans, and potentially billions around the world, who have volunteered their DNA, the reality is that potential bad actors may already be developing drugs and weapons based on their most personal data of all — their genetic code.
Source: The Last American Vagabond
Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.
ACTIVIST POST – ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS – CREATIVE COMMONS 2019