Connect with us

Government

The Woke Mob “Crosses The Streams”

The Woke Mob "Crosses The Streams"

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

The climax of the hit movie Ghostbusters was when the protagonists…

Published

on

The Woke Mob "Crosses The Streams"

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

The climax of the hit movie Ghostbusters was when the protagonists finally decided to “cross the streams” of their proton packs to defeat the final ghost, the Stay Puft marshmallow man.

In the context of the movie, it was an unthinkable action - viewers were warned early on that that “crossing the streams” of the unlicensed nuclear accelerators they were wearing on their backs would prompt an apocalypse-style event called “total protonic reversal”, which would be, for lack of a better word, “bad”.

At the end of the movie the gang finds themselves engaging in the practice on purpose to try and close the door to another dimension and save New York City. In other words, they incited “protonic reversal” to try and make the “inside out” ghost world become “outside in” again. The world became the inverse of what it once was.

To me, it seems pretty obvious that the woke world has crossed the streams: it is currently in the midst of the same type of inversion and, while the public is starting to notice it clearly, those perpetuating the wokeness are unaware of the destruction they are creating to their own universe.


Woke ideology, which took the virtuous and noble ideas of caring for those around you and equality of opportunity and then, as postmodernism does, permutated them an infinite number of times over until they were completely incomprehensible and meaningless, has hit an inflection point.

Putting aside the sheer lunacy of the things that woke culture is currently fighting for - ending fossil fuels during an energy crisis while using everyday items made from petroleum, never-ending Covid protocols and mandates, arguing both sexes can get pregnant and menstruate, advocating for biological men to be allowed to beat the shit out of biological women in mixed martial arts matches and general equality of outcome - the charade otherwise finally appears to be obvious.

Ah, the sweet smell of equality.

More importantly, the charade ending is becoming obvious to many people who have huge megaphones and transcend political borders - especially people in the entertainment industry.


I started off 2022 by predicting that common sense was eventually going to do away with vaccine mandates and Covid hysteria.

Now, it appears that Pfizer’s recent admission that it never tested its Covid vaccines for transmissibility before they were released - and after the entire world was told the vaccines would prevent transmission - could wind up being the straw that breaks the woke camel’s back.

Days after this admission, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky herself tested positive for Covid-19 about one year after she took to national television to proclaim that “data from the CDC” suggested that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus” and “don’t get sick”.

As these stunning revelations were taking place, which put the vast touted lie of sterilizing immunization into clear, simple words and terms that the everyday citizen could easily understand, Academy Award and Grammy Award nominated musician M.I.A. asked:

“If Alex Jones pays for lying, shouldn’t every celebrity pushing vaccines pay too?”


Immediately she was “cancelled” by the left and demonized on social media for her sentiments, which did nothing but compare the consequences between how two entities - Pfizer and Alex Jones - were being held accountable for their obvious lies.

“M.I.A. has faced criticism after she decided to compare a conspiracy theorist lying about the massacre of innocent children to promoting the Covid vaccine,” Rolling Stone wrote, making sure to remind readers that invoking Alex Jones’ lies involved invoking the “massacre of innocent children”, the day after her Tweets.

Then, GQ Magazine severed their ties with her:

After Arulpragasam’s tweets went viral – with most commenters pointing out the absurdity of her comparison and sharing proof that vaccines are largely effective – a representative for GQ appeared to reach out to somebody on her team, alerting them that the magazine would be cancelling plans it had to collaborate with her.

Arulpragasam herself shared a screenshot of the message, which explains that “due to [the] controversial nature” of the artist’s “Twitter activity”, GQ would be cancelling her involvement in its 2022 Men Of The Year Awards, as well as a planned photoshoot. It’s unclear what role Arulpragasam was to have in the Awards, which are slated to be celebrated on Wednesday November 16.

Rolling Stone also pointed out that her skepticism about vaccines in March 2020 cost her a feature in Vogue:

The tweet from M.I.A. should come as no surprise as she revealed in March 2020 — as Covid roiled the United States — that she would be choosing not to get the vaccine, writing, “If I have to choose the vaccine or chip I’m gonna choose death.”

Shortly after that tweet, she claimed British Vogue had decided to pull a feature on her due to her comments about the virus.  “Anti vaxer [sic] is your term. It didn’t exist before this binary addiction everyone has to separate everything into this and that,” she wrote on Instagram in April 2020. “Anti this anti that. I prefer to not make everything so black and white.”

Following up this monthM.I.A. told The Guardian her simple reasoning for her statements: “I know three people who have died from taking the vaccine and I know three people who have died from COVID.”

“This is in my life, in my experience. If anyone is going to deny that experience and gaslight me, saying: ‘No, that’s not your experience,’ then what is the point of anything?”

She continued: “What is the existence that you are trying to protect by giving me a vaccine if I can’t even have an experience and process that information in my own brain and come to some sort of conclusion? And live within a society where I have to make choices every day? There’s this weird idea that we’re all free, and that we fight for everything, and we can say what we want, but on the other hand, I feel like there’s even more of a crackdown on that.”

For all of the unadulterated praise the woke has for females, artists and immigrants, one would think M.I.A. - an artist of Sri Lankan decent who was forced to become a refugee at age 11, and who went on to be one of the first “viral” artists to leverage the internet to distribute her work - would rest comfortably at a cross section of bold female leaders praised for challenging the status quo and adored by the woke.

In fact, it was her “think for yourself” attitude that garnered her praise from the music industry early in her career:

M.I.A.'s accolades include two American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) awards and two MTV Video Music Awards. She is the first person of South Asian descent to be nominated for an Academy Award and Grammy Award in the same year.

She was named one of the defining artists of the 2000s decade by Rolling Stone, and one of the 100 most influential people of 2009 by Time. Esquire ranked M.I.A. on its list of the 75 most influential people of the 21st century. According to Billboard, she was one of the "Top 50 Dance/Electronic Artists of the 2010s".

M.I.A. was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the 2019 Birthday Honours for her services to music.

It seems clear to me that when the mob starts cancelling the very same woke artists they once worshipped for being original and asking critical questions, the idea of using art and music to push for change is in the midst of dying a slow, ironic death.

And while the left tries to ignore the fact that being an artist used to be about making people think, they can’t ignore M.I.A.’s circumstances, which is what makes it so wonderful to watch her stand up for what she believes in: the same identity politics often hurled out by those casting judgement have been turned back on the mob.

They can’t call her part of the patriarchy because she’s a strong female trailblazer in her industry. They can’t call her homophobic or racist because nearly her entire musical catalogue has been about supporting human rights and immigration.

The lunacy of the situation is glaring. The woke truly have no “case” against M.I.A. other than simply blindingly carrying a narrative for big pharma and Pfizer. Is this what the left has become?

And to, M.I.A., well…

“You've made this day a special day, by just your being you.” - Mr. Rogers


Get 50% off: If you would like to support my work and have the means, I would love to have you as a subscriber and can offer you 50% off for lifeGet 50% off forever


The pushback on woke culture “crossing the streams” isn’t just with M.I.A., either. Other members of Hollywood, and even Democrats, understand how bad it is making the party look and the toll it is taking on our country.

Last week, former Home Improvement star and comedian Tim Allen took to social media to jab at the “woke” mindset.

“Who is the face of the woke. Do wokees have a club house in someone’s backyard or maybe a cute yet safe playpen somewhere?” he wrote.

Then you have former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, who just left her party because, in her words, it is "now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness."

"The Democrats of today are hostile to people of faith and spirituality. They demonize the police and protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans. The Democrats of today believe in open borders and weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents. Above all else, the Democrats of today are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war," Gabbard said.

Then you have Former President Barack Obama, who recently made comments on the Pod Save America podcast calling Democrats “buzzkills” who make people “walk on eggshells”.

"Sometimes Democrats are [buzzkills]. Sometimes people just want to not feel as if they are walking on eggshells, and they want some acknowledgment that life is messy and that all of us, at any given moment, can say things the wrong way, make mistakes,” Obama said.

He continued: "We spend enormous amounts of time and energy and resources pointing out the latest crazy thing he said, or how rude or mean some of these Republican candidates behaved. That's probably not something that in the minds of most voters overrides their basic interests — Can I pay the rent? What are gas prices? How am I dealing with childcare?"

In addition to Allen, Gabbard and Obama, this past week we also saw several ungrateful woke “activists” doing what they do best: halfheartedly trying to further a nonsensical agenda by showing zero respect for anyone or anything and expecting to be taken seriously.

Self-proclaimed “activists” from a group called “Just Stop Oil”, threw canned tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh‘s Sunflowers at the National Gallery in London, England in the name fighting for climate change…or something.

The 21 and 20 year olds justified their actions with statements like:

“Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?”

As I pointed out on Twitter yesterday, the sad thing is that these “activists” get as much attention as we give them, despite whether or not they make sense. Media chooses to label these people “protestors” and “activists” instead of “vandals” and “felons”.


And, while we’re at it, here’s another shining example of relinquishing power to the woke mob: Europe is in one of the worst energy crises of its history - a crisis that could last for years to come. The continent is in “desperate straits”. Yet the world is so dedicated to fulfilling a corporate and government-backed ESG and climate change narrative that simple solutions proposed by experts, like nuclear power, are no longer feasible

While people in Europe can’t afford to keep their lights on, the world has stopped searching for solutions to generate energy in favor of trying to win the favor of activists - and then the world is shocked when populist politicians are elected.

Nuclear power, as I’ve written about dozens of times, holds a common sense key to both fulfilling a green agenda and increasing power capacity. It is a solution that makes sense that many world governments are just starting to come around to.

Yet nuclear as a solution didn’t become a headline this year until it was approved by de facto European Energy Czar, 20 year old Greta Thunberg, in an interview earlier this month.

 

For some reason Thunberg was asked about her opinion on nuclear power, and when she offered up her stamp of approval - voila - it became an international headline.


Being woke used to be about raging against the machine, remember? Now it’s about scrapping to defend the machine.

The left used to be advocates for free speech who harbored a healthy skepticism of government, corporations and elites. This ideology has now turned into an addictive dependence on “big brother” that they once rallied against.

As anyone of sound and sober mind can see looking from the outside in, that dependence has manifested in a baffling show of blind support and trust for big pharma, calls for censoring the opinions of those who don’t agree, a desire for state-sponsored “fact checking” of discourse and advocating for a completely manipulated ESG agenda, backed by giants like Blackstone and being used by global elites to abscond with people’s civil rights.

In other words, the woke mob has officially “crossed the streams”. The woke mob has officially ventured so far off of the once-virtuous path that they have sullied their own name, as well as the act of activism itself.

This is happening leading up to a mid-term election where Democrats are widely expected to lose handily, specifically due to their incessant overreaching need to invade the personal space of others in order to tell them how morally and ethically bankrupt they are for a variety of inane reasons cloaked in faux-intellectual sounding jargon.

The woke once showed up on the scene of a real problem: there really was a point in world history when not enough was being done for equality. At the time, they drew their virtuous proton packs and fired at the issue full force. But in fighting, and admittedly helping progress against the problem over the course of decades, they eventually, unknowingly, also crossed their streams.

Now, their woke universe is about to implode on itself.

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light” - Egon Spengler

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/24/2022 - 13:05

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Fuel poverty in England is probably 2.5 times higher than government statistics show

The top 40% most energy efficient homes aren’t counted as being in fuel poverty, no matter what their bills or income are.

Published

on

By

Julian Hochgesang|Unsplash

The cap set on how much UK energy suppliers can charge for domestic gas and electricity is set to fall by 15% from April 1 2024. Despite this, prices remain shockingly high. The average household energy bill in 2023 was £2,592 a year, dwarfing the pre-pandemic average of £1,308 in 2019.

The term “fuel poverty” refers to a household’s ability to afford the energy required to maintain adequate warmth and the use of other essential appliances. Quite how it is measured varies from country to country. In England, the government uses what is known as the low income low energy efficiency (Lilee) indicator.

Since energy costs started rising sharply in 2021, UK households’ spending powers have plummeted. It would be reasonable to assume that these increasingly hostile economic conditions have caused fuel poverty rates to rise.

However, according to the Lilee fuel poverty metric, in England there have only been modest changes in fuel poverty incidence year on year. In fact, government statistics show a slight decrease in the nationwide rate, from 13.2% in 2020 to 13.0% in 2023.

Our recent study suggests that these figures are incorrect. We estimate the rate of fuel poverty in England to be around 2.5 times higher than what the government’s statistics show, because the criteria underpinning the Lilee estimation process leaves out a large number of financially vulnerable households which, in reality, are unable to afford and maintain adequate warmth.

Blocks of flats in London.
Household fuel poverty in England is calculated on the basis of the energy efficiency of the home. Igor Sporynin|Unsplash

Energy security

In 2022, we undertook an in-depth analysis of Lilee fuel poverty in Greater London. First, we combined fuel poverty, housing and employment data to provide an estimate of vulnerable homes which are omitted from Lilee statistics.

We also surveyed 2,886 residents of Greater London about their experiences of fuel poverty during the winter of 2022. We wanted to gauge energy security, which refers to a type of self-reported fuel poverty. Both parts of the study aimed to demonstrate the potential flaws of the Lilee definition.

Introduced in 2019, the Lilee metric considers a household to be “fuel poor” if it meets two criteria. First, after accounting for energy expenses, its income must fall below the poverty line (which is 60% of median income).

Second, the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of D–G (the lowest four ratings). The government’s apparent logic for the Lilee metric is to quicken the net-zero transition of the housing sector.

In Sustainable Warmth, the policy paper that defined the Lilee approach, the government says that EPC A–C-rated homes “will not significantly benefit from energy-efficiency measures”. Hence, the focus on fuel poverty in D–G-rated properties.

Generally speaking, EPC A–C-rated homes (those with the highest three ratings) are considered energy efficient, while D–G-rated homes are deemed inefficient. The problem with how Lilee fuel poverty is measured is that the process assumes that EPC A–C-rated homes are too “energy efficient” to be considered fuel poor: the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is a characteristic of the property, not the occupant’s financial situation.

In other words, by this metric, anyone living in an energy-efficient home cannot be considered to be in fuel poverty, no matter their financial situation. There is an obvious flaw here.

Around 40% of homes in England have an EPC rating of A–C. According to the Lilee definition, none of these homes can or ever will be classed as fuel poor. Even though energy prices are going through the roof, a single-parent household with dependent children whose only income is universal credit (or some other form of benefits) will still not be considered to be living in fuel poverty if their home is rated A-C.

The lack of protection afforded to these households against an extremely volatile energy market is highly concerning.

In our study, we estimate that 4.4% of London’s homes are rated A-C and also financially vulnerable. That is around 171,091 households, which are currently omitted by the Lilee metric but remain highly likely to be unable to afford adequate energy.

In most other European nations, what is known as the 10% indicator is used to gauge fuel poverty. This metric, which was also used in England from the 1990s until the mid 2010s, considers a home to be fuel poor if more than 10% of income is spent on energy. Here, the main focus of the fuel poverty assessment is the occupant’s financial situation, not the property.

Were such alternative fuel poverty metrics to be employed, a significant portion of those 171,091 households in London would almost certainly qualify as fuel poor.

This is confirmed by the findings of our survey. Our data shows that 28.2% of the 2,886 people who responded were “energy insecure”. This includes being unable to afford energy, making involuntary spending trade-offs between food and energy, and falling behind on energy payments.

Worryingly, we found that the rate of energy insecurity in the survey sample is around 2.5 times higher than the official rate of fuel poverty in London (11.5%), as assessed according to the Lilee metric.

It is likely that this figure can be extrapolated for the rest of England. If anything, energy insecurity may be even higher in other regions, given that Londoners tend to have higher-than-average household income.

The UK government is wrongly omitting hundreds of thousands of English households from fuel poverty statistics. Without a more accurate measure, vulnerable households will continue to be overlooked and not get the assistance they desperately need to stay warm.

The Conversation

Torran Semple receives funding from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/S023305/1.

John Harvey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Looking Back At COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked,…

Published

on

After having moved from Canada to the United States, partly to be wealthier and partly to be freer (those two are connected, by the way), I was shocked, in March 2020, when President Trump and most US governors imposed heavy restrictions on people’s freedom. The purpose, said Trump and his COVID-19 advisers, was to “flatten the curve”: shut down people’s mobility for two weeks so that hospitals could catch up with the expected demand from COVID patients. In her book Silent Invasion, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, admitted that she was scrambling during those two weeks to come up with a reason to extend the lockdowns for much longer. As she put it, “I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them.” In short, she chose the goal and then tried to find the data to justify the goal. This, by the way, was from someone who, along with her task force colleague Dr. Anthony Fauci, kept talking about the importance of the scientific method. By the end of April 2020, the term “flatten the curve” had all but disappeared from public discussion.

Now that we are four years past that awful time, it makes sense to look back and see whether those heavy restrictions on the lives of people of all ages made sense. I’ll save you the suspense. They didn’t. The damage to the economy was huge. Remember that “the economy” is not a term used to describe a big machine; it’s a shorthand for the trillions of interactions among hundreds of millions of people. The lockdowns and the subsequent federal spending ballooned the budget deficit and consequent federal debt. The effect on children’s learning, not just in school but outside of school, was huge. These effects will be with us for a long time. It’s not as if there wasn’t another way to go. The people who came up with the idea of lockdowns did so on the basis of abstract models that had not been tested. They ignored a model of human behavior, which I’ll call Hayekian, that is tested every day.

These are the opening two paragraphs of my latest Defining Ideas article, “Looking Back at COVID’s Authoritarian Regimes,” Defining Ideas, March 14, 2024.

Another excerpt:

That wasn’t the only uncertainty. My daughter Karen lived in San Francisco and made her living teaching Pilates. San Francisco mayor London Breed shut down all the gyms, and so there went my daughter’s business. (The good news was that she quickly got online and shifted many of her clients to virtual Pilates. But that’s another story.) We tried to see her every six weeks or so, whether that meant our driving up to San Fran or her driving down to Monterey. But were we allowed to drive to see her? In that first month and a half, we simply didn’t know.

Read the whole thing, which is longer than usual.

(0 COMMENTS)

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

on

Problems After COVID-19 Vaccination More Prevalent Among Naturally Immune: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

People who recovered from COVID-19 and received a COVID-19 shot were more likely to suffer adverse reactions, researchers in Europe are reporting.

A medical worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a patient at a vaccination center in Ancenis-Saint-Gereon, France, on Nov. 17, 2021. (Stephane Mahe//Reuters)

Participants in the study were more likely to experience an adverse reaction after vaccination regardless of the type of shot, with one exception, the researchers found.

Across all vaccine brands, people with prior COVID-19 were 2.6 times as likely after dose one to suffer an adverse reaction, according to the new study. Such people are commonly known as having a type of protection known as natural immunity after recovery.

People with previous COVID-19 were also 1.25 times as likely after dose 2 to experience an adverse reaction.

The findings held true across all vaccine types following dose one.

Of the female participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 82 percent who had COVID-19 previously experienced an adverse reaction after their first dose, compared to 59 percent of females who did not have prior COVID-19.

The only exception to the trend was among males who received a second AstraZeneca dose. The percentage of males who suffered an adverse reaction was higher, 33 percent to 24 percent, among those without a COVID-19 history.

Participants who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (confirmed with a positive test) experienced at least one adverse reaction more often after the 1st dose compared to participants who did not have prior COVID-19. This pattern was observed in both men and women and across vaccine brands,” Florence van Hunsel, an epidemiologist with the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and her co-authors wrote.

There were only slightly higher odds of the naturally immune suffering an adverse reaction following receipt of a Pfizer or Moderna booster, the researchers also found.

The researchers performed what’s known as a cohort event monitoring study, following 29,387 participants as they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The participants live in a European country such as Belgium, France, or Slovakia.

Overall, three-quarters of the participants reported at least one adverse reaction, although some were minor such as injection site pain.

Adverse reactions described as serious were reported by 0.24 percent of people who received a first or second dose and 0.26 percent for people who received a booster. Different examples of serious reactions were not listed in the study.

Participants were only specifically asked to record a range of minor adverse reactions (ADRs). They could provide details of other reactions in free text form.

“The unsolicited events were manually assessed and coded, and the seriousness was classified based on international criteria,” researchers said.

The free text answers were not provided by researchers in the paper.

The authors note, ‘In this manuscript, the focus was not on serious ADRs and adverse events of special interest.’” Yet, in their highlights section they state, “The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination and booster.”

Dr. Joel Wallskog, co-chair of the group React19, which advocates for people who were injured by vaccines, told The Epoch Times: “It is intellectually dishonest to set out to study minor adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination then make conclusions about the frequency of serious adverse events. They also fail to provide the free text data.” He added that the paper showed “yet another study that is in my opinion, deficient by design.”

Ms. Hunsel did not respond to a request for comment.

She and other researchers listed limitations in the paper, including how they did not provide data broken down by country.

The paper was published by the journal Vaccine on March 6.

The study was funded by the European Medicines Agency and the Dutch government.

No authors declared conflicts of interest.

Some previous papers have also found that people with prior COVID-19 infection had more adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including a 2021 paper from French researchers. A U.S. study identified prior COVID-19 as a predictor of the severity of side effects.

Some other studies have determined COVID-19 vaccines confer little or no benefit to people with a history of infection, including those who had received a primary series.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends people who recovered from COVID-19 receive a COVID-19 vaccine, although a number of other health authorities have stopped recommending the shot for people who have prior COVID-19.

Another New Study

In another new paper, South Korean researchers outlined how they found people were more likely to report certain adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination than after receipt of another vaccine.

The reporting of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, or pericarditis, a related condition, was nearly 20 times as high among children as the reporting odds following receipt of all other vaccines, the researchers found.

The reporting odds were also much higher for multisystem inflammatory syndrome or Kawasaki disease among adolescent COVID-19 recipients.

Researchers analyzed reports made to VigiBase, which is run by the World Health Organization.

Based on our results, close monitoring for these rare but serious inflammatory reactions after COVID-19 vaccination among adolescents until definitive causal relationship can be established,” the researchers wrote.

The study was published by the Journal of Korean Medical Science in its March edition.

Limitations include VigiBase receiving reports of problems, with some reports going unconfirmed.

Funding came from the South Korean government. One author reported receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/15/2024 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending