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.

20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex from 9/11 to COVID-19

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN

What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.

Our losses are mounting with every passing day.

What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act  has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.

The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.

The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.

Keep reading

Portland State University Professor Resigns, Says School Is a ‘Social Justice Factory’

Portland State University professor Peter Boghossian said he’s resigned from his position in an open letter and accused the college administration of creating an environment that imperils dissent.

“I never once believed—nor do I now—that the purpose of instruction was to lead my students to a particular conclusion,” Boghossian, a philosophy professor, wrote in the letter. “Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions. This is why I became a teacher and why I love teaching.”

But over time, he argued, Portland State University—a publicly-funded college—made “intellectual exploration impossible” and has transformed itself into a “social justice factory” with a primary focus on race, victimhood, and gender.

“Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues,” said the letter, which was published on Bari Weiss’s Substack page. Weiss herself previously worked for the New York Times until 2020 when she resigned, accusing her Times colleagues of bullying, and argued that the paper capitulated to Twitter-based pressure campaigns.

Keep reading

The Plutonium Files: The US Government Injected Unsuspecting Citizens With Plutonium

In the mid-1940s the US was leading the world in atomic weapons development and the understanding of radioactive materials. Just ten years after plutonium had been discovered, the Manhattan Project was already close to creating a working atomic bomb. Such advances had not been made on the safe handling of such materials, however. This lack of understanding led to researchers on the project injecting people, unwittingly, with plutonium, to study the effects.

The Manhattan Project was the name of the major US research and development program that produced working atomic weapons. It began officially began in 1942, but similar, less intensive research had been ongoing since the late 1930s. The US took the idea of atomic weapons seriously in 1939 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt received the Einstein–Szilárd letter from Hungarian physicists. This letter warned the US about the potential German development of atomic weapons and was signed by Albert Einstein.

While it’s most famous for the development of the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project encompassed a number of different paths of research at different sites.

Much of this was related to the incredibly complex development and production of the weapons themselves, but a small priority was placed on studying the health effects of the materials involved in the project.

Keep reading

Constitution, Declaration Of Independence Now Have ‘Trigger Warnings’ On National Archives Site

Digital copies of America’s founding documents — as well as other historical documents in the National Archives’ online catalog — now feature “trigger warnings” alerting readers that they may contain “harmful language,” and the change appears to follow the release of a “little-noticed” report from a National Archives racism task force that suggested the agency provide “context” for its historical materials.

Digital copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, most notably, now feature a “Harmful Language Alert,” which appears at the top of the page, and directs users to a National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) statement on “potentially harmful content.”

The NARA does not specify why the Constitution, Declaration, or Bill of Rights received the warning, but the NARA statement indicates that documents and historical materials are marked as having “harmful language” when they:

  • reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
  • be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
  • include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
  • demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.

Trigger warnings are listed as just one of a number of solutions to the problem of providing historical documents to an increasingly “diverse community,” the NARA notes, and are part of an “institutional commitment” to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Keep reading

ORWELLIAN: CDC Changes Definition Of “Vaccination” To No Longer Include “Immunity”

On September 1st, 2021 the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) updated its website’s definition of the word “vaccination,” replacing the word “immunity” with “protection.”

“Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”

Prior to September 1st, the orginial definiton of “vaccination” on the CDC’s website.

“Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.”

As of Septembest 1st, the new definiton of “vaccination” on the CDC’s website.

The change in definition was noticed by Americans around the country with many posting screenshots of the definition before and after the change online.

One such post was shared on Instagram by conservative political commentator Kangmin Lee, known as @koreanchristianconservative on Instagram.

“We’re living in 1984.” Lee writes. “They keep shifting the goalpost, lying to us, and redefining terms. They did this with herd immunity, anti-vax, and now the definition of vaccination itself from immunity to “protection”, which is such a broad, vague term. And of course, this is all by design. Wake up America.”

“Stop trusting these public health bureaucrats,” Lee wrote in another comment on his post.

The post shows a screenshot of a Twitter post saying “The CDC changes the definition of v⍺ccination on September 1st. Replaces ‘immunity’ with ‘protection,’” and also shows screenshots to show evidence of the definition before and after the change, with dates included.

Keep reading

Joe Rogan Says He May Sue CNN For “Making Sh*t Up” About Him “Taking Horse Dewormer”

Podcast king Joe Rogan threatened to sue CNN on a broadcast this week, saying that the network is constantly spreading lies about him taking Ivermectin, after CNN claimed that the medicine is horse de-wormer, when it is not.

“Do I have to sue CNN? They’re making sh*t up,” Rogan said during the episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.

“They keep saying I’m taking horse dewormer. I literally got it from a doctor. But CNN keeps saying I’m taking horse dewormer. They must know that that’s a lie,” Rogan added.

Rogan was prescribed ivermectin to treat COVID symptoms, along with monoclonal antibodies, Z-pak, prednisone, and an IV vitamin drip. Rogan says he got better in three days.

While it hasn’t been officially approved to treat COVID, the medicine is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines, and is FDA-approved as an antiparasitic agent.

“What they didn’t highlight is that I got better,” said Rogan. “They’re trying to make it sound like I’m doing such wacky sh*t that’s completely ineffective. CNN was saying that I’m a distributor of misinformation.”

Keep reading

Brrr… Arctic Sea Ice Melt the Lowest in 15 Years, Antarctic Sea Ice Above Average

Do you remember when AOC said we had only 12 years left on the planet due to “climate change”?

Yeah… She’s an idiot.

We’re going to be fine – and we don’t need to destroy the US economy to save the planet.

The Arctic sea ice is the highest it’s been in nine years. It has increased more than 30% from last year.

And Antarctic sea ice is way above normal.

Keep reading

Lawyer for Jan. 6 Defendants Released From Hospital, Says Reports He Went ‘Missing’ Are Inaccurate

A lawyer representing 17 clients who were allegedly involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach released a statement Tuesday saying reports he went missing are false.

John Pierce, who is based in California, issued a lengthy comment to The Gateway Pundit saying he was hospitalized for 12 days and has recovered. Pierce later confirmed to The Epoch Times on Tuesday that he released the statement.

Court filings that were submitted last month by acting U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips said that about 20 cases related to the Jan. 6 incident haven’t proceeded after Pierce didn’t show up, alleging that he was “reportedly ill” with COVID-19 and on a ventilator. A law firm associate who isn’t a licensed lawyer appeared in Pierce’s place during court hearings and proceedings, according to the filings.

“Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Pierce may be hospitalized and unable to communicate, and it is unclear when Mr. Pierce will recover,” prosecutors wrote in the filing.

Pierce, however, said that he was released from a Los Angeles-area hospital on Sept. 5 after a 12-day stay.

“I was not ‘missing’ or anything of the sort. I am greatly appreciative of the many expressions of prayer and support,” he said in a statement. “And I am deeply grateful for the amazing care I received from the doctors, nurses, and staff who cared for me.”

Keep reading

Twitter, Facebook, President Biden, and Surgeon General sued for alleged censorship collusion

US data analyst Justin Hart is one of the recent victims of COVID-related censorship on social networks, but he’s also one of those joining to fight back in the legal arena.

The Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit focused on constitutional rights, is suing on his behalf, with Facebook, Twitter, US President Joe Biden and the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy all named as defendants.

We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.

Hart is alleging that his First Amendment free speech rights had been violated when his social media accounts got suspended for posting what is said to be a scientifically-based graphic under the title, “Masking Children is Impractical and Not Backed by Research or Real World Data.”

News outlets like the New York Post – who recall that their own factually correct, and occasionally bombshell stories (like the “Hunter Biden files“) got suppressed by Big Tech – suggest this claim should by now not be particularly contentious, let alone a reason for censorship.

“Study after study repeatedly shows that children are safer than vaccinated adults and that the masks people actually wear don’t do much good,” writes the Post.

But when Hart posted the infographic, Facebook reacted by locking his personal account, created in 2007, for three days. The filing indicates that the same happened to this data analyst and digital strategist on Twitter as well – but what’s particularly interesting is why top government officials, including the president himself, have been named in the lawsuit.

Namely, Hart alleges collusion between these privately owned giants and the US government, with the purpose of monitoring, flagging, suspending and deleting content that it chooses to label as misinformation.

Under current rules in the US dictated by its Constitution, the government would not be able to do this directly; but recent statements coming from Biden and some of his top collaborators have added fuel to the fire of suspicion that a form of collusion to suppress free expression on the internet might actually be taking place.

Biden recently went as far – to then be forced to walk back – as to publicly accuse Facebook of “killing people” by not getting rid of COVID content unwanted by the current administration fast enough.

This happened just after White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “We are regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health that we and many other Americans are seeing across all of social and traditional media,” adding, “You shouldn’t be banned from one platform and not others.”

Keep reading

The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced Mandates and Coercive Measures to Fight Pandemics

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surprised even many of its harshest critics this week when it strongly defended coercive programs and other mandates from the state in the name of fighting COVID. “Far from compromising them, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties,” its Twitter account announced, adding that “vaccine requirements also safeguard those whose work involves regular exposure to the public.”

If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of “vaccine mandates” and “vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that “some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute”) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:

[W]hen it comes to Covid-19, all considerations point in the same direction. . . . In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. . . . .

[Many claim that] vaccines are a justifiable intrusion on autonomy and bodily integrity. That may sound ominous, because we all have the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health care decisions. But these rights are not absolute. They do not include the right to inflict harm on others. . . . While vaccine mandates are not always permissible, they rarely run afoul of civil liberties when they involve highly infectious and devastating diseases like Covid-19. . . .

While limited exceptions are necessary, most people can be required to be vaccinated. . . . . Where a vaccine is not medically contraindicated, however, avoiding a deadly threat to the public health typically outweighs personal autonomy and individual freedom.

The op-ed sounds like it was written by an NSA official justifying the need for mass surveillance (yes, fine, your privacy is important but it is not absolute; your privacy rights are outweighed by public safety; we are spying on you for your own good). And the op-ed appropriately ends with this perfect Orwellian flourish: “We care deeply about civil liberties and civil rights for all — which is precisely why we support vaccine mandates.”

What makes the ACLU’s position so remarkable — besides the inherent shock of a civil liberties organization championing state mandates overriding individual choice — is that, very recently, the same group warned of the grave dangers of the very mindset it is now pushing. In 2008, the ACLU published a comprehensive report on pandemics which had one primary purpose: to denounce as dangerous and unnecessary attempts by the state to mandate, coerce, and control in the name of protecting the public from pandemics.

The title of the ACLU report, resurfaced by David Shane, reveals its primary point: “Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health – Not a Law Enforcement/National Security – Approach.” To read this report is to feel that one is reading the anti-ACLU — or at least the actual ACLU prior to its Trump-era transformation. From start to finish, it reads as a warning of the perils of precisely the mindset which today’s ACLU is now advocating for COVID.

Keep reading