Now it's classical music: Denounce Putin or Be Blacklisted

 

And now compelled speech is canceling classical music.  Heather Mac Donald is a favorite of mine, and even if classical music is not your thing, you’ll probably know that canceling a performance of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture is a stupid way to virtue-signal any solidarity you may have with the Ukraine or opposition to Putin.  Ms. Mac Donald published yesterday at City Journal, and here’s her opener:

Compelled speech is becoming routine in academia. On campuses, faculty candidates for hiring and tenure increasingly must attest to their dedication to diversity to be considered for a job or a promotion. At least one university requires professors to post a “land acknowledgement”—a statement declaring that the space being used was originally the habitation of indigenous people—on their syllabus page.

Now the classical music establishment is adopting that same norm. Russian musicians are being asked to condemn President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to retain jobs and performing engagements in the West. Staying above the fray is not an option, and denouncing the war will not ward off cancellation. Russian musicians must criticize Putin by name or be blacklisted.

Classical music’s recent self-abasement for its “whiteness” laid the groundwork for this presumptive group guilt. Since the George Floyd race riots in May and June 2020, directors of orchestras, opera companies, and conservatories have lambasted their own field for its historical demographics, said to be inextricably linked to racism. Music critics have sneered at Beethoven and other composers for having allegedly leveraged their whiteness to achieve undeserved acclaim. Mea culpas and promises of fealty to Black Lives Matter have become de rigeuer in mission statements and fundraising pitches. Now these coerced confessions are demanded of a subset of musicians whose Russianness makes them as suspect as whiteness does the entire Caucasian population. Even Russian music itself faces a political litmus test.

Ms. Mac Donald goes on to cite chapter-and-verse on the numerous cancellations worldwide of Russian-born musicians, including the cancellation of superstar Anna Netrebko’s upcoming appearances at The Metropolitan Opera -- and even dead composers such as Tchaikovsky.  Madness.  Full article is here.  

# # #

Legal recourse for "vaccines"?

 

Whether you have gotten the jab or not, Paul S. Gardiner at American Thinker is not the first to point out that the mRNA experimental gene therapy is not a “vaccine.”  That is a distinction that was made early on in the “plandemic.”  But Mr. Gardiner is proposing a potential legal remedy that citizens might demand.  While IMHO it is a long shot, I am sharing it anyway:

. . . Why call an experimental gene therapy product a "vaccine"?  Dr. [David] Martin believes that there are two basic reasons: 1) to circumvent liability for damages, and 2) if the products were called gene therapy or a similar label, most people would wisely refuse to use them.

Regarding avoiding liability for damages, as long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like COVID-19 "vaccines" are allowed under emergency use authorization.  As long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these "vaccines" are not financially liable for any damages that comes from their use.  However, Dr Martin states that "there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy."  In fact, if the documentation Pfizer and Moderna provided the Federal Drug Administration for emergency use authorization can be proven fraudulent, then there is no legal protection.

Given the above, a multitude of multi-million-dollar lawsuits are possible, if not probable, against the two pharmaceutical companies by parties who have been "injured" in one way or another by Moderna and Pfizer inoculations.  Depending on the evidence produced, criminal indictments may also be a possibility.

What needs to happen next?  Dr. Martin urges citizens to contact their state attorney, governor, representatives, and anyone else who might be in a position to take action to address and correct what he calls a tremendous fraud on the American people. . . .

Full column is here.  Obviously, legal recourse is not the same as a medical remedy, but for what it is worth, calling governors, state reps, et al might get some media attention. 

# # #

Book review of “Maverick” - about Thomas Sowell

 

Charles Murray reviews Jason L. Riley’s new book Maverick, a biography of Thomas Sowell as well as an overview of Mr. Sowell’s contributions to “race, political philosophy, and economic theory.” Here are a few extracts published in The Claremont Review of Books:

The Immortal Sowell

In a reasonable world, Thomas Sowell’s life would be celebrated in the same way we honor Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, and Marian Anderson—as a black hero, born into a genuinely systemically racist America, who not only endured but prevailed.

. . .

Jason Riley, a columnist at the Wall Street Journal and author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed (2014), outlines Sowell’s personal history in his new biography, Maverick, but does not dwell on it. Instead, Riley decided to give readers an overview of Sowell’s thought. It was a formidable task. I counted 36 book titles in his Wikipedia bibliography, and that total doesn’t include collections of essays and revisions of earlier books. His work has touched on virtually every important social and economic policy issue of our era. How does one summarize it without either oversimplifying Sowell’s contributions or losing the reader’s attention? It can be done, Riley demonstrates, with clean prose and a journalistic narrative. Maverick is a pleasure to read.

Diverse as Sowell’s topics have been, most of them may be grouped under three headings: race, political philosophy, and economic theory.

. . .

One measure of Riley’s success is that I finished Maverick inspired to read Sowell’s books that I had missed and to reread some of the ones I thought I already knew. And that, I hope, will be Maverick’s impact on others as well: to get people in the 2020s and beyond to read Sowell. He has so much to teach to a new generation—and most emphatically, to the generation that is redefining the American Right.

. . . When researching Losing Ground in the early 1980s, I was startled to discover that 19th-century thinkers had analyzed the moral hazards of welfare with far greater sophistication than the public intellectuals of my era. In 2021, reminded by Maverick of all that Sowell has accomplished, I had a parallel reaction: Sowell’s analyses of a host of social and political issues are more sophisticated and acute than those of just about everyone who writes on the same topics today. As far as I can tell, every argument that one might make against the positions of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ibram Kendi had already been laid out by Sowell by the mid-1970s, and no one since has described them better. Forty-two years ago, Knowledge and Decisions provided a deeper analysis of the dysfunction of modern welfare states and administrative states than anything in the contemporary debate. Thirty-five years ago, A Conflict of Visions identified the dynamics that drive today’s political polarization. With Maverick, Jason Riley makes the case for what I consider to be the core truth about Thomas Sowell’s legacy. He would be seen as one of a handful of seminal intellectuals of the last half-century—in a reasonable world.

Full book review is here. 

# # #

Dr Mercola on getting the jab

 

Yesterday, this blog posted about censorship of COVID skeptics, including those who won't take the jab and who question the "narrative" -- including the masks, the social distancing, and the jab itself.  At Uncanceled News, Dr Joseph Mercola has an update on the “vaccines” and once again, it’s scary:

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Moderna announced they were developing three vaccines using mRNA technology for cancer, shingles and herpes. Yet, the current mRNA shot has not proven to be successful, nor are the long-term effects of genetic therapy known
• Moderna and BioNTech, the two companies that developed mRNA vaccines with emergency use authorization in the U.S., had not produced an approved product before the COVID injection
• Some authorities believe the shot is successful. Yet, it doesn’t stop recipients from getting the illness or from being hospitalized, and it has a significant risk of adverse side effects, including permanent disability and death
• Dr. Robert Malone, who discovered how to prepare mRNA so human cells could incorporate the genetic code and use it, warned the FDA that the shot could be dangerous, and he is warning parents they should carefully consider injecting children, which is an irreversible decision

Moderna produces one of three COVID shots available in the U.S.[1] In November 2021, Moderna released data on third-quarter sales showing phenomenal profits from the vaccine of $5 billion worldwide and forecasted $18 billion for the year just from the mRNA vaccine.[2] To take advantage of this revenue stream, the company announced they are developing three new mRNA vaccines for shingles, cancer and herpes.[3]

At the start of the vaccine race, the Health and Human Services Operation Warp Speed pledged to deliver 300 million doses of the vaccine by 2021.[4] This was just months after the pandemic had been declared in early 2020. Yet, developing a safe and effective vaccine normally takes years and begins with animal studies.[5]

In addition to the speed at which the vaccine was developed, the shot did not fit the definition of a vaccine at that time, as the mRNA product the pharmaceutical companies were planning does not induce immunity in and of itself; rather, it delivers instructions to the recipient’s cells to do that by producing their own proteins to fight the targeted disease. So what did the CDC do? They changed the definition of vaccine.

Much more here, including the footnotes.  Government credibility – zero.    

RELATED: At CitizenFreePress, Dr Zelenko talks about ivermectin and the US doctors who are going to jail for prescribing it.  The accompanying chart from COVID cases in Africa compares results for countries approving ivermectin vs those that don’t. Add in Uttar Pradesh’s success with it, and Dr Fauci and his cabal look like criminals.

# # #

 

Lies and more censorship

 

COVID And Election Skeptics Now Labeled As

‘Domestic Violent Extremism Threats’

In Internal DHS Review ~ That's over half of America.

Red Voice Media reports at Lifezette:

. . .While the report itself is inundated chiefly with a series of purported “gaps” and suggested solutions in their efforts to identify individuals who the department would deem as being among these security threats, the highlighting of the “Current Domestic Violent Extremism Threat Landscape” notes that the likes of election and COVID skeptics could be labeled as extremists.

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a statement in tandem with the released report, noting how the department won’t “tolerate hateful acts or violent extremist activity” within DHS. . . .

Just more censorship.  Full Lifezette report is here.

# # #

Trump rally this evening ~ Saturday March 12 at 7pm

 

From President Trump’s gab.com message (h/t NewsAmmo):

Big rally in South Carolina [this evening, Saturday March 12]. Will be honoring Katie Arrington, who is running against the absolutely horrendous Nancy Mace, and Russell Fry, who is likewise running against “doesn’t have a clue” Tom Rice. Big crowds at the Florence Regional Airport, starts at 7:00PM ET. 

Click here to link to streaming on RightSideBroadcastNews or go to Conservative Treehouse here to access.

# # # 

Daylight Saving Time reminder

 

Daylight Saving Time begins at 2 a.m. Sunday, March 13.  Set your clock forward one hour. 

# # #