Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

World Economic Forum Urges Companies To Fire Unvaccinated Employees As Part of ‘Jobs Reset,’ Deletes Tweet After Backlash

The World Economic Forum indicated Monday that it supports employees being forced to choose between taking one of the four controversial Covid vaccines, or unemployment if they choose to not take the vaccine.

After intense backlash, they deleted the initial tweet and uploaded another post with the same graphic and a tweaked caption.

“Get your COVID-19 jab – or you could face consequences from your employer #COVID19 #JobsReset21,” the original tweet posted on Monday read. The tweet was accompanied by a colorful graphic showcasing the purported poll numbers of companies that would fire employees for not taking the vaccine.

An article on the WEF website that was linked in the posts made various claims based on polling data such as, “Forty percent of companies surveyed in a new report require all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19,” “Employees will be encouraged but not required to get a jab by 32% of companies,” and, “Mental health concerns and burn-out have risen up the agenda since the onset of the pandemic.”

Keep reading

CDC greatly exaggerated risk of outdoor virus transmission

Parks and playgrounds have been shuttered while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to recommend that masks be worn outdoors in many situations, even by people who are vaccinated.

But “the science” upon which those guidelines are based apparently is far from reality, according to a New York Times report.

The CDC has estimated that the risk of COVID-19 transmission while outdoors is about 10%. But the true figure may be less than 1% — and possibly even less than 0.1%.

If it is 0.1%, that means the CDC’s estimate was 100 times too high.

The Times reported the 10% figure is based “partly on a misclassification” of some virus transmission from a study. Some of the settings classified as outdoor, such as construction sites, actually were a mix of both outdoor and indoor.

On Tuesday, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky was confronted by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, regarding the Times report. The senator noted it was another example of conflicting and confusing guidance, along with recommendations related to school reopenings and summer camps.

Walensky explained that the 10% benchmark was derived from a study published in the Journal of Infectious Disease in November that synthesized various studies.

A CDC official told the Times there are limited data on outdoor transmission.

Keep reading

How the CDC is manipulating data to prop-up “vaccine effectiveness”

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

  1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
  2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Keep reading

Kamala Harris Keeps A Running Tab On Reporters Who ‘Don’t Fully Understand’ Or ‘Appreciate’ Her

Vice President Kamala Harris (D) keeps a running list of reporters and journalists who “don’t fully understand or appreciate her life experience,” The Atlantic reported.

It appears the goal of the list is to keep Harris away from reporters she and her team have deemed unworthy of receiving an interview.

“The vice president and her team tend to dismiss reporters. Trying to get her to take a few questions after events is treated as an act of impish aggression. And Harris herself tracks political players and reporters whom she thinks don’t fully understand her or appreciate her life experience. (She often mentions an episode in which a Washington Post reporter mistook the cheer of the historic Black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha for ‘screeches,’ I was told.),” the outlet indicated. “She particularly doesn’t like the word cautious, and aides look out for synonyms too. Careful, guarded, and hesitant don’t go over well. But she continues to retreat behind talking points and platitudes in public, and declines many interview requests and opportunities to speak for herself (including for this article).”

Keep reading

Pentagon launches program to surveil military personnel’s social media

The Pentagon is planning on launching a program that would screen military personnel’s social media for “extremist material” — looking to retain a private firm to do the digging in order to circumvent First Amendment protections, according to a report.

Internal Defense Department documents reviewed by The Intercept reveal that Bishop Garrison, a senior advisor to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin tasked with addressing “extremism” in the armed forces, is currently in the process of designing a social media screening program which will “continuously” monitor for “concerning behaviors.”

In the past, the Pentagon has shied away from surveilling members due to First Amendment protections, as well as other privacy concerns.

This program, according to the outlet, citing a senior Pentagon official, will rely on a private firm in order to avoid being accused of circumventing First Amendment restrictions through government.

Keep reading

An Essential Guide To The Truths And Myths Of Chemical Weapons

If you were to ask the average person on the street to tell you about chemical weapons, odds are you’ll hear far more in the way of legend, born out of popular culture, than you will anything resembling fact. For most people, the only information they have on chemical weapons comes from movies like The Rock, episodes of 24, or trashy spy thrillers. Worse still, because that level of background knowledge is so low, even those people who can speak with even a basic level of understanding can often be taken as credible, even as they rattle off incredibly misleading information.

I should know this. Before I started really working in the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) field, I wasn’t much better. When I first joined the U.S. Army as an artillery officer, my sum total of chemical defense training was a short period of instruction as a cadet at Fort Lewis. That very limited instruction reinforced the fact that chemical protective suits are awful to wear more than conveying any real functional knowledge about chemical agents and their effects. 

Keep reading

As doomsday predictions fizzle, climate crowd joins on lockdown bandwagon

A short time ago, climate activists were claiming that the world had just a year left to exist if climate change was not properly addressed. As those dire predictions fall by the wayside, some eco-warriors are hopping on a new bandwagon.

According to The Guardian, a new report from Nature Climate Change suggests that the world would need the equivalent of a COVID-19 lockdown every two years to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions of about 7% in 2020, or about 2.6bn tonnes of CO2, but reductions of between 1bn and 2bn tonnes are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement,” The Guardian reported.

They added that many countries were already starting to cut emissions before the pandemic, but that was not enough to please the woke mob.

“Since lockdowns were eased in many countries last year, there have been strong signs that emissions will rise again to above 2019 levels, severely damaging the prospects of fulfilling the Paris goals,” they reported.

Keep reading

Israel is deliberately obliterating media buildings in Gaza to cover up the war crimes that will follow

The destruction of two important Gaza buildings housing 20 media outlets was both shocking and predictable. History shows that if the media aren’t around to document Israel’s war crimes, it’s a lot easier for it to commit them.

On Tuesday, Israel bombed the 10-storey Al-Jawhara Tower, causing it to collapse. Before doing so, it had ‘benevolently’ warned that the airstrikes were coming. The following day, it bombed the 14-storey Al-Shorouk Tower, also giving warning it was going to do so.

Most reports have the buildings as evacuated before being levelled. But without these media offices, reporting on Israel’s other war crimes will be left largely to what little media remain and citizen journalists.

The buildings were significant. A statement by the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) noted the Al-Jawhara building housed the offices of 13 media institutions and NGOs. And an advisory by the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that the Al-Shorouk building housed at least seven media outlets.

A further statement by the same committee said that the Israeli military had defended its bombing of the building via email, bizarrely claiming it had “acted within international law,” alleging the Al-Jawhara building housed Hamas’ intelligence and military offices, and saying the Al-Shorouk building was a base for Hamas’ military intelligence offices and “infrastructure to communicate tactical-military information.”

Keep reading

’60 Minutes’ Explores UFOs

Venerable news program 60 Minutes devoted a significant portion of Sunday night’s broadcast to exploring incidents of Navy pilots witnessing unidentified aerial phenomena and the United States government’s recent acknowledgment of the issue. Amazingly, the nearly 15-minute-long segment, which can be seen in its entirety above and is transcribed here, was actually the first time the program has ever covered UFOs in its more than five decades on the air . The piece largely served as an explainer to the 60 Minutes audience who may have been unaware of the remarkable series of UFO-related events that have been unfolding since the late 2017 New York Times article that revealed a Pentagon program to study unidentified aerial phenomena.

During the segment, reporter Bill Whitaker spoke to former military intelligence official Lue Elizondo and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Christopher Mellon, about their concerns regarding what they see as the government’s unwillingness to take a critical look at the UAP issue and how they have been working to rectify that situation. Also interviewed were former Navy pilots Lieutenant Ryan Graves and Alex Dietrich as well as retired US Navy pilot commander David Fravor. All three former pilots recounted their personal experiences witnessing unidentified aerial phenomena, with Graves making the eye-brow raising statement that he saw UAPs “every day for at least a couple years.”

While UFO enthusiasts may have found most of the material in the segment to be a retread of information that has already been circulating in bits and pieces over the last three years, the show undoubtedly brought a sizeable portion of the public up to speed on the matter, which is something of a victory for those wishing for the subject to be taken more seriously. On that note, one particularly telling aspect of the program was that, unlike in the vast majority of instances wherein the mainstream media looks at UFOs, the phenomenon was given a sincere examination rather than being the subject of ridicule. Additionally, it is noteworthy that not once during the segment were the words “alien” or “extraterrestrial” uttered by anyone.

Keep reading

The “Bonkers” Interview Of Bonny Prince Harry: Why The Attack On The First Amendment Should Concern All Americans

The media went into a frenzy this weekend when the bonny Prince Harry gave a huge Hurrumpf to the First Amendment. On a show appropriately called “the Armchair Expert,” Harry declared the First Amendment “bonkers” and expressed frustration of how it protects the media in its “feeding frenzy” over his life. Harry’s criticism of the First Amendment can be dismissed as the unfamiliarity of a royal refugee. However, it is actually far more serious than that. Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle have attacked media rights in England and succeeded under the laws of the United Kingdom. They are now joining a growing anti-free speech and free press movement in the United States.

It was not a surprise for many to hear Harry lash out at the First Amendment. After all, Harry and Meghan are so woke, they are virtual insomniacs.

However, that is the point. The First Amendment no longer holds the inviolate position it once did with the left.

Indeed, the First Amendment is now often treated as a danger than a guarantee to a fair and just society. Experts have explained how to evade its limitations to silence others. They have found precisely what Harry discussed in the interview when he noted “you can find a loophole in anything.”

Democratic leaders now openly call for corporate censorship and banning of books and authors. Academics now join in the cancelling of colleagues who express dissenting views of subjects ranging from climate change to gender identification to racial justice. Thus, it is not as risky for the Harry to declare “I’ve got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.” Rather, millions are likely to wait in rapt anticipation to hear more of what Prince Harry will say about correcting our Constitution.

Keep reading