Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

The UK Health Secretary is to issue a proposal to ban trans patients from female hospital wards in the UK, as well as reinstating ‘sex specific’ language in National Health Service materials, according to reports.

The Daily Mail reports that “Steve Barclay will unveil the plans to push back against ‘wokery’ in the health service amid concerns that women’s rights are being sidelined.”

Daily Mail: “Trans women patients ‘to be banned from female wards’ under plans to be announced by Health Secretary Steve Barclay today”https://t.co/dPU9wbKEZL

— Emily Wilding Davison (@Wommando) October 3, 2023

The proposal would see only people of the same biological sex sharing wards, with care coming from doctors and nurses of the same sex, when it comes to intimate health matters.

“We need a common-sense approach to sex and equality issues in the NHS. That is why I am announcing proposals for clearer rights for patients,” Barlcay stated, adding “It is vital that women’s voices are heard in the NHS and the privacy, dignity and safety of all patients are protected.”

He added “And I can confirm that sex-specific language has now been fully restored to online health advice pages about cervical and ovarian cancer and the menopause.”

As we previously highlighted, the word ‘women’ was removed from such materials and replaced with non-gendered terms to be “more inclusive”:

A source close to the Health Secretary told the Telegraph that “The Secretary of State is fed up with this agenda and the damage it’s causing, language like “chestfeeding”, talking about pregnant “people” rather than women. It exasperates the majority of people, and he is determined to take action.”

“He is concerned that women’s voices should be heard on healthcare and that too often wokery and ideological dogma is getting in the way of this,” the source added.

Related:

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Summit Vitamins – super charge your health and well being.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Those of us who are libertarians have a tendency to speak frequently of “the New World Order.”

When doing so, we tend to be a bit unclear as to what the New World Order is.

Is it a cabal of the heads of the world’s governments, or just the heads of Western governments?

Certainly bankers are included somewhere in the mix, but is it just the heads of the Federal Reserve and the IMF, or does it also include the heads of JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, etc.?

And how about the Rothschilds? And the Bundesbank—surely, they’re in there, too?

And the list goes on, without apparent end.

Certainly, all of the above entities have objectives to increase their own power and profit in the world, but to what degree do they act in concert? Although many prominent individuals, world leaders included, have proclaimed that a New World Order is their ultimate objective, the details of who’s in and who’s out are fuzzy. Just as fuzzy is a list of details as to the collective objectives of these disparate individuals and groups.

So, whilst most libertarians acknowledge “the New World Order,” it’s rare that any two libertarians can agree on exactly what it is or who it’s comprised of. We allow ourselves the luxury of referring to it without being certain of its details, because, “It’s a secret society,” as evidenced by the Bilderberg Group, which meets annually but has no formal agenda and publishes no minutes. We excuse ourselves for having only a vague perception of it, although we readily accept that it’s the most powerful group in the world.

This is particularly true of Americans, as Americans often imagine that the New World Order is an American construct, created by a fascist elite of US bankers and political leaders. The New World Order may be better understood by Europeans, as, actually, it’s very much a European concept—one that’s been around for quite a long time.

It may be said to have had its beginnings in ancient Rome. As Rome became an empire, its various emperors found that conquered lands did not automatically remain conquered. They needed to be managed—a costly and tedious undertaking. Management was far from uniform, as the Gauls could not be managed in the same manner as the Egyptians, who in turn, could not be managed like the Mesopotamians.

After the fall of Rome, Europe was in many ways a shambles for centuries, but the idea of “managing” Europe was revived with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The peace brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) in the Holy Roman Empire and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It brought together the Holy Roman Empire, The House of Habsburg, the Kingdoms of Spain and France, the Dutch Republic, and the Swedish Empire.

Boundaries were set, treaties were signed, and a general set of assumptions as to the autonomy within one’s borders were agreed, to the partial satisfaction of all and to the complete satisfaction of no one… Sound familiar?

Later, Mayer Rothschild made his name (and his fortune) by becoming the financier to the military adventures of the German Government. He then sent his sons out to England, Austria, France, and Italy to do the same—to create a New World Order of sorts, under the control of his family through national debt to his banks. (Deep Throat was right when he said, “Follow the Money.”)

So, the concept of a New World Order has long existed in Europe in various guises, but what does this tell us about the present and, more important, the future?

In our own time, we have seen presidents and prime ministers come and go, whilst their most prominent advisors, such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, continue from one administration to the next, remaining advisors for decades. Such men are often seen as the voices of reason that may be the guiding force that brings about a New World Order once and for all.

Mister Brzezinski has written in his books that order in Europe depends upon a balance with Russia, which must be created through the control of Ukraine by the West. He has stated repeatedly that it’s critical for this to be done through diplomacy, that warfare would be a disaster. Yet, he has also supported the US in creating a coup in Ukraine. When Russia became angered at the takeover, he openly supported American aggression in Ukraine, whilst warning that Russian retaliation must not be tolerated.

Henry Kissinger, who has literally written volumes on his “pursuit of world peace” has, when down in the trenches, also displayed a far more aggressive personality, such as his angry recommendation to US President Gerald Ford to “smash Cuba” when Fidel Castro’s military aid to Angola threatened to ruin Mr. Kissinger’s plans to control Africa.

Whilst the most “enlightened” New World Order advisors may believe that they are working on the “Big Picture,” when it comes down to brass tacks, they clearly demonstrate the same tendency as the more aggressive world leaders, and reveal that, ultimately, they seek to dominate. They may initially recommend diplomacy but resort to force if the other side does not cave to “reason” quickly.

If we stand back and observe this drama from a distance, what we see is a theory of balance between the nations of Europe (and, by extension, the whole world)—a balance based upon intergovernmental agreements, allowing for centralised power and control.

This theory might actually be possible if all the countries of the world were identical in every way, and the goals of all concerned were also identical. But this never has been and can never be the case. Every world leader and every country will differ in its needs and objectives. Therefore, each may tentatively agree to common conditions, as they have going back to the Peace of Westphalia, yet, even before the ink has dried, each state will already be planning to gain an edge on the others.

In 1914, Europe had (once again) become a tangle of aspirations of the various powers—a time bomb, awaiting only a minor incident to set it off. That minor incident occurred when a Serbian national assassinated an Austrian crown prince. Within a month, Europe exploded into World War. As Kissinger himself has observed in his writings, “[T]hey all contributed to it, oblivious to the fact that they were dismantling an international order.”

Since 1648, for every Richelieu that has sought to create a New World Order through diplomacy, there has been a Napoleon who has taken a militaristic approach, assuring that the New World Order applecart will repeatedly be upset by those who are prone to aggression.

Further, even those who seek to operate through diplomacy ultimately will seek aggressive means when diplomatic means are not succeeding.

A true world order is unlikely.

What may occur in its stead would be repeated attempts by sovereign states to form alliances for their mutual benefit, followed by treachery, one- upmanship, and ultimately, aggression. And very possibly a new World War.

But of one thing we can be certain: Tension at present is as great as it was in 1914. We are awaiting only a minor incident to set off dramatically increased international aggression. With all the talk that’s presently about as to a New World Order, what I believe will occur instead will be a repeat of history.

If this belief is correct, much of the world will decline into not only external warfare, but internal control. Those nations that are now ramping up into police states are most at risk, as the intent is already clearly present. All that’s needed is a greater excuse to increase internal controls. Each of us, unless we favour being engulfed by such controls, might be advised to internationalise ourselves—to diversify ourselves so that, if push comes to shove, we’re able to get ourselves and our families out of harm’s way.

*  *  *

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible, and even profit from the situation. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey just released Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse an urgent new PDF report. It explains what could come next and what you can do about it so you don’t become a victim. Click here to download it now.

Hungary’s Viktor Orbán has long been an opponent of the mainstay of EU policy on Ukraine, having also persistently criticized Kiev for discrimination against Hungarian minorities, and demanding that a 2017 law restricting the use of minority languages be changed. He’s also refused to ratify Sweden’s entry into NATO.

Orbán has further throughout the conflict stood against policies which escalate against Moscow, and has constantly warned against stumbling into a WW3 scenario involving direct NATO-Russia clash. He told Tucker Carlson in a recent interview that “the Third World War сould be knocking on our door so we have to be very careful.” With Budapest having been a consistent thorn in the side of the EU, Brussels now wants to pay the Hungarians off.

“The European Commission is preparing to unfreeze around €13 billion in funds for Hungary to try to avoid Prime Minister Viktor Orbán vetoing EU aid for Ukraine, in a move likely to draw criticism from the European Parliament,” Politico reports Tuesday.

“The Commission needs the unanimous backing of the bloc’s 27 countries for an update to the EU’s long-term budget, which includes a €50 billion funding pot for Ukraine,” the report adds.

Akin to what’s currently going down in Washington with a group of Republicans holding up Ukraine funding, Brussels may soon have its own Ukraine aid blockage problem. EU aid for Kiev which was previously approved runs out in December, hence the urgency for EU leadership in wanting to push through a new package.

A week ago, Orbán gave a speech declaring Hungary will no longer support Ukraine in any way unless certain significant policies are changed both in Kiev and in the European Union.

He stressed in the words given before parliament that “Hungary is doing everything for peace” but that “unfortunately the Russian-Ukrainian war continues, tens of thousands of people are victims.” Thus, he continued, “Diplomats must take control back from the hands of the soldiers, otherwise it will be in vain for women to wait for their sons and fathers and husbands to come home.”

The Hungarian leader has stood against ratcheting Western sanctions on Moscow, instead choosing to maintain a generally positive diplomatic relationship with the Kremlin.

He also a week ago charged that Kiev and its backers have cheated Budapest by “Ukrainian grain dumping” into his country. He had also laid out, per The Hill:

… that he was protesting a 2017 law in Ukraine that limits ethnic Hungarians from speaking their own language, particularly in schools and said Hungary would not support Ukraine on international issues “until the previous laws are restored.”

Needless to say EU officials are panicking, and are readying a lucrative quid pro quo with Hungary (based on freeing frozen funds related to the prior years’ so-called “rule of law” punitive measures”), so that EU aid to Ukraine doesn’t get blocked at a crucial moment that Washington funding is drying up.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Poland, Austria and Czechia will all introduce random checks at the countries’ borders with Slovakia from midnight on Wednesday following an influx of illegal immigration.

Temporary checks will be conducted along the length of the border for an initial 10-day period until Oct. 13.

They will focus specifically on road and railway border crossings, although, pedestrians and cyclists may also be asked for documentation. Anyone within the vicinity of the border may be requested to identify themselves.

“The numbers of illegal migrants to the EU are starting to grow again,” said Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala following the announcement. “We don’t take the situation lightly.”

“Citizens need a valid passport or identity card to cross the border,” the Czech Interior Ministry added.

The Czech policy would also be adopted by neighboring Austria, the country’s Interior Minister Gerhard Karner confirmed.

Poland had already announced its intention to reintroduce checks on the Slovak border with the number of migrants along the Balkans migration route continuing to surge. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said last week he was “instructing Minister of Interior Mariusz Kamiński to check on buses, coaches, and cars crossing the border when it is suspected there could be illegal migrants on board.”

“In recent weeks, we detected and detained 551 illegal migrants at the border with Slovakia. This situation causes us to take decisive action,” Kaminski added.

Slovak caretaker Prime Minister Ludovit Odor acknowledged the growing issue of illegal migration in his country but insisted that the problem needs a European solution rather than individual nations restricting border access.

He claimed that the decision by the three neighboring countries had been fueled by the Polish government, which is involved in a tightly contested election campaign, with Poles heading to voting booths on Oct. 15.

“The whole thing has been triggered by Poland, where an election will soon take place, and the Czech Republic has joined in,” Odor said.

Slovakia revealed last month that the number of illegal migrants detained by its authorities this year had soared nine-fold to over 27,000. The majority of detainees comprise young men from the Middle East using the Balkan migratory route through Serbia as they seek to migrate to northwestern Europe.

The winner of Sunday’s general election in Slovakia, former Prime Minister Robert Fico, has vowed to tackle the issue more robustly by promising to reintroduce border checks with neighboring Hungary.

“It will not be a pretty picture,” Fico told journalists as he threatened to use force to dispel illegal migrants detected on Slovak territory.

Authored by Madge Waggy via SevenWop.home.blog,

The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control.

Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.

Eight Predictions

Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns. 

According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.

If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment. 

In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.

In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.

2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.

3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.

4. Meat consumption will be minimized.

5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.

6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.

7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.

8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point..

Beyond Privacy and Property

In a publication for the World Economic Forum, the Danish ecoactivist Ida Auken, who had served as her country’s minister of the environment from 2011 to 2014 and still is a member of the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), has elaborated a scenario of a world without privacy or property. In “Welcome to 2030,” she envisions a world where “I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.” By 2030, so says her scenario, shopping and owning have become obsolete, because everything that once was a product is now a service.

In this idyllic new world of hers, people have free access to transportation, accommodation, food, “and all the things we need in our daily lives.” As these things will become free of charge, “it ended up not making sense for us to own much.” There would be no private ownership in houses nor would anyone pay rent, “because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it.” A person’s living room, for example, will be used for business meetings when one is absent. Concerns like “lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment” are things of the past. The author predicts that people will be happy to enjoy such a good life that is so much better “than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth.”

Ecological Paradise

In her 2019 contribution to the Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils of the World Economic Forum, Ida Auken foretells how the world may look in the future “if we win the war on climate change.” By 2030, when CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced, people will live in a world where meat on the dinner plate “will be a rare sight” while water and the air will be much cleaner than today. Because of the shift from buying goods to using services, the need to have money will vanish, because people will spend less and less on goods. Work time will shrink and leisure time will grow.

For the future, Auken envisions a city where electric cars have substituted conventional combustion vehicles. Most of the roads and parking spaces will have become green parks and walking zones for pedestrians. By 2030, agriculture will offer mainly plant-based alternatives to the food supply instead of meat and dairy products. The use of land to produce animal feed will greatly diminish and nature will be spreading across the globe again.

Fabricating Social Consent

How can people be brought to accept such a system? The bait to entice the masses is the assurances of comprehensive healthcare and a guaranteed basic income. The promoters of the Great Reset promise a world without diseases. Due to biotechnologically produced organs and individualized genetics-based medical treatments, a drastically increased life expectancy and even immortality are said to be possible. Artificial intelligence will eradicate death and eliminate disease and mortality. The race is on among biotechnological companies to find the key to eternal life.

Along with the promise of turning any ordinary person into a godlike superman, the promise of a “universal basic income” is highly attractive, particularly to those who will no longer find a job in the new digital economy. Obtaining a basic income without having to go through the treadmill and disgrace of applying for social assistance is used as a bait to get the support of the poor.

To make it economically viable, the guarantee of a basic income would require the leveling of wage differences. The technical procedures of the money transfer from the state will be used to promote the cashless society. With the digitization of all monetary transactions, each individual purchase will be registered. As a consequence, the governmental authorities would have unrestricted access to supervise in detail how individual persons spend their money. A universal basic income in a cashless society would provide the conditions to impose a social credit system and deliver the mechanism to sanction undesirable behavior and identify the superfluous and unwanted.

Who Will Be the Rulers?

The World Economic Forum is silent about the question of who will rule in this new world.

There is no reason to expect that the new power holders would be benevolent. Yet even if the top decision-makers of the new world government were not mean but just technocrats, what reason would an administrative technocracy have to go on with the undesirables? What sense does it make for a technocratic elite to turn the common man into a superman? Why share the benefits of artificial intelligence with the masses and not keep the wealth for the chosen few?

Not being swayed away by the utopian promises, a sober assessment of the plans must come to the conclusion that in this new world, there would be no place for the average person and that they would be put away along with the “unemployable,” “feeble minded,” and “ill bred.” Behind the preaching of the progressive gospel of social justice by the promoters of the Great Reset and the establishment of a new world order lurks the sinister project of eugenics, which as a technique is now called “genetic engineering” and as a movement is named “transhumanism,” a term  coined by Julian Huxley, the first director of the UNESCO.

The promoters of the project keep silent about who will be the rulers in this new world. The dystopian and collectivist nature of these projections and plans is the result of the rejection of free capitalism. Establishing a better world through a dictatorship is a contradiction in terms. Not less but more economic prosperity is the answer to the current problems. Therefore, we need more free markets and less state planning. The world is getting greener and a fall in the growth rate of the world population is already underway. These trends are the natural consequence of wealth creation through free markets.

Conclusion

The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.

There’s a new, maritime dimension to the scourge of rampant crime in northern California cities, as homeless creeps are now taking to the water and preying on houseboats and yachts docked on San Francisco Bay, reports Fox News. 

“Multiple vessels have been stolen and ransacked. Victims have had to resort to personally confronting the criminals to recover their property without the benefit of police support,” said former harbor master Brock de Lappe at a recent municipal meeting. “Is this appropriate activity for a 79-year-old senior?”

The 3,000-slip Oakland-Alameda Estuary has been particularly hard-hit, as thieves use small boats to burglarize or steal private boats on the waterway. The pirates use stolen boats or old, abandoned dinghies to carry out their raids. 

“Homeless pirates maraud in crime-ridden San Francisco Bay, USA”

The California coast is increasingly plagued by pirates who use small motorboats to raid larger ships and houseboats. pic.twitter.com/gXUqJj8Bt9

— Sprinter Monitoring (@SpriterMonitor1) October 2, 2023

A boating school for children has seen four of its eight safety boats stolen and destroyed. The boats cost the school between $25,000 and $35,000 apiece. “We cannot run our program without these boats,” wrote Kame Richards, owner of the nonprofit Alameda Community Sailing Center, in a letter to his municipal commission.

“The response we received from APD (Alameda Police Department) was that they could do nothing, and a warning not to approach the perpetrators if we located our boats,” added Richards. Sounds about par for the course in a state where the Senate has advanced a bill that would criminalize retail-store policies requiring employees to attempt to thwart thieves. 

“We had all hands on deck to retrieve this stuff, and it took 35 hours to get a police report number from the Alameda Police Department,” said Richards during a municipal meeting. The school is on the verge of calling it quits.

Another woman scared a troubling tale, telling Fox that she recently heard faint cries of “help me, please, please, anybody help me” coming from the inky darkness of the estuary. She dared to venture out with her kayak and a headlamp, and found a sailboat with a “panicked and terrified young man” aboard. He said pirates cut his sailboat line and set him adrift after a confrontation. 

“If there had been any wind at the time I wouldn’t have been able to go out there and rescue this young man who had no motor and no ability to sail that boat,” said his rescuer, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. 

What stage of collapse is “pirates?”https://t.co/ktfAjE95fr #FoxNews

— Chris “Context Matters” Martenson, PhD (@chrismartenson) October 2, 2023

Things have deteriorated to the point that a group that has regularly volunteered to clean up the waterway for the past six years cancelled this year’s event “because of safety concerns” arising from a particularly concerning homeless encampment. “Unfortunately, I don’t feel comfortable bringing children to the site until those are addressed by the city of Oakland,” said the group’s leader, Mary Spicer. 

Alameda island has received high marks for suburban livability, but that’s in jeopardy as it’s increasingly feeling the ill effects of being across a narrow channel from Oakland and its skyrocketing homeless population. The island city has no maritime police equipment, and has seen its police force shrink by 30% in recent years. 

Authored by Bert Olivier via The Brownstone Institute,

Truth-speaking (or truth-telling) is not the same as truth. At least not in the familiar sense of a correspondence between what is stated and the state of affairs to which it corresponds – the so-called correspondence theory of truth. Or, for that matter, the coherence theory of truth, which judges the truth of statements by the criterion of whether it coheres with the body of statements within which it functions. 

There are several other such theories of truth, for example the pragmatic theory of truth, which assesses truth in the light of what supposedly true statements do, or by their consequences for action (ancient Greek ‘pragma’: ‘thing done’; ‘act’; ‘deed’). 

Truth-telling, or in ancient Greek, parrhesia, is something different. It is what one does when you tell or speak the truth exactly as you experience or perceive it, with no punches pulled. You don’t have to call the proverbial spade a shovel (unless this is what it takes to get through to your interlocutor), but you have to speak truthfully without holding back. This is particularly relevant for speaking (or writing) in public, where you run the risk of exposing yourself to harsh criticism. 

It is also what you do when you feel constrained to tell a friend the barefaced truth about something that she or he has done, or is doing, and which falls short of the standards of honesty, or decency, or friendship, and because you care for your friend and value your friendship, you risk it by saying what has to be done to rescue it. It is not this kind of friend-to-friend parrhesia which concerns me here, in the first place, but rather the kind that sometimes, albeit seldom, occurs in the public domain. Here is Michel Foucault, in a justly famous philosophy seminar, talking about it: 

In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. The word ‘parrhesia’ then, refers to a type of relationship between the speaker and what he says. For in parrhesia, the speaker makes it manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the parrhesiastes uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find. Whereas rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his audience (regardless of the rhetorician’s own opinion concerning what he says), in parrhesia, the parrhesiastes acts on other people’s mind by showing them as directly as possible what he actually believes.

This should sound very familiar to us today. Not because we are familiar with such truth-speaking, but precisely because we are not – at least not in the public domain, in the vast majority of cases. On the contrary, today one is mostly witness to the deliberate distortion of truth, and not even through the sophisticated use of rhetoric. It is usually straightforward, blatant lying.

Foucault is careful to add that there are two types of parrhesia – sometimes the word is used to denote the genuine thing and sometimes it is employed pejoratively, to indicate that someone is just “chattering”, as Foucault calls it. Heidegger calls this “idle talk”. In both instances it means that someone says virtually anything that comes to mind, without exercising any discerning judgement about the sense or implications of what they say, or simply because it is the fashionable thing to say. 

However, according to Foucault, most of the time when the term is encountered in classical Greco-Roman texts, it is in the affirmative sense of truth-speaking. Needless to point out, it is not a practice explicitly familiar to us today, in the specific sense with which it was endowed in antiquity. Nonetheless, it would not be difficult to find counterparts to parrhesia in contemporary society, particularly because there is an exigency for it in the present time. Why is that? In the text cited earlier, Foucault reminds one that: 

…the commitment involved in parrhesia is linked to a certain social situation, to a difference of status between the speaker and his audience, to the fact that the parrhesiastes says something which is dangerous to himself and thus involves a risk, and so on…

If there is a kind of ‘proof’ of the sincerity of the parrhesiastes, it is his courage. The fact that a speaker says something dangerous — different from what the majority believes— is a strong indication that he is a parrhesiastes.

To appreciate this, one should remind oneself that not every instance of speaking the truth can be considered as being parrhesia. Foucault explains:

Someone is said to use parrhesia and merits consideration as a parrhesiastes only if there is a risk or danger for him or her in telling the truth. For instance, from the ancient Greek perspective, a grammar teacher may tell the truth to the children that he teaches, and indeed may have no doubt that what he teaches is true. But in spite of this coincidence between belief and truth, he is not a parrhesiastes. However, when a philosopher addresses himself to a sovereign, to a tyrant, and tells him that his tyranny is disturbing and unpleasant because tyranny is incompatible with justice, then the philosopher speaks the truth, believes he is speaking the truth, and, more than that, also takes a risk (since the tyrant may become angry, may punish him, may exile him, may kill him)…

Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the ‘game’ of life or death.

The well-known saying, ‘to speak truth to power’, is obviously related to this, and probably derives from Foucault’s (and also Edward Said’s) work.

And have we not witnessed exemplary instances of this today, in the face of what is arguably the largest attempt at a (global) coup d’etat in the history of humanity! 

We all owe those brave souls who have risked their reputations, their incomes, and sometimes their lives, by acting as parrhesiastes in the face of almost incomprehensible institutional, technological and media power, a huge debt of gratitude for setting an example for the rest of us. There are too many to list here, but among the names that come readily to mind are those of Dr Naomi Wolf, Robert F. Kennedy, Dr Joseph Mercola, Dr Robert Malone, Dr Peter McCullough, Alex Berenson, Dr Meryl Nass, Dr Denis Rancourt, and Todd Callender, among many others who have suffered and even died. 

As Foucault said, parrhesia is dangerous and risky. But what choice does one have, if not merely your income, reputation and your life, but also – more importantly – your moral integrity as a human being is at stake? It takes courage to be a parrhesiastes. This is why Foucault observes that:

When you accept the parrhesiastic game in which your own life is exposed, you are taking up a specific relationship to yourself: you risk death to tell the truth instead of reposing in the security of a life where the truth goes unspoken. Of course, the threat of death comes from the Other, and thereby requires a relationship to himself: he prefers himself as a truth-teller rather than as a living being who is false to himself.

Here’s the thing: presumably all those people who contribute to, and most of those who read Brownstone articles, know what evil power is behind the attempts to cause the collapse of the world economy and decimate the world’s human population. I use the word ‘evil’ advisedly, for there is no way of saying more clearly and accurately what animates the actions of those agents in the service of the Leviathan in question, which has several fronts, among them most prominently the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). 

Moreover, one cannot expect any parrhesia from them. On the contrary, as Foucault points out, “It is because the parrhesiastes must take a risk in speaking the truth that the king or tyrant generally cannot use parrhesia; for he risks nothing”.

Nothing prevents us from practicing this ancient mode of address when we confront the tyrannical monstrosity in question, however, which is why I want to say to them that, contrary to what they believe, drunk with their own vaunted importance and supposed power, they should not be too sure of not risking their necks. The disgusting Klaus Schwab of the WEF himself talks about people being very “angry,” which is probably an understatement, judging by the opinions expressed by many people I know. 

So, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates and your ilk – including the bankers who are hiding in the shadows – I cannot encourage you to examine your collective and individual conscience, because you evidently don’t have one. It is, after all, a telling characteristic of psychopaths to be devoid of a conscience, and therefore of the capacity to feel guilt or remorse. 

But evidently you can feel fear, otherwise you would not have been sufficiently paranoid to surround yourselves with 5000 heavily armed troops at your exclusive boys’ club meeting at Davos in January. And you should be afraid, very afraid, because when this is over, you will be called to account.

Signs are abounding that increasing numbers of people are realising that you and your empty ‘promise’ of ‘building back better’ are the engineers of the increasing economic hardships they face, and are showing in no uncertain terms that they will not allow that to continue indefinitely. 

Hence, don’t start celebrating too soon about your desired success in getting the better of the putative ‘useless eaters’. Except, of course, that you don’t know how to celebrate; only truly human people know how to do that – people who know the joy of togetherness at a birthday celebration, or a wedding, or when you go dancing – something the love of my life and I do regularly, when our favourite bands perform live at a joint we frequent in the city. To quote the late, inimitable Leonard Cohen:

So you can stick your little needles in that voodoo doll; 
I’m very sorry baby, doesn’t look like me at all
I’m standin’ by the window where the light is strong…

Now, you can say that I’ve grown bitter but of this you may be sure:
The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor
And there’s a mighty Judgement comin’…
You see, I hear these funny voices in the Tower of Song…

Therefore, you empty vessels, here is a concluding bit of parrhesia: on those cold winter nights (as Dolly famously sang to Horace Vandergelder) you can snuggle up to your AI robots, while we humans cuddle up for mutual warmth. You would be envious if you could imagine it, but I know you have no imagination. If you did, you would use all your money and technology to make the world a better place for all people; not just the few quasi-robots in your coterie, masquerading as people. But I can assure you that we shall make the world a better place – without you.

Several weeks after Tropical Storm Lee made landfall in the western part of Canada’s Nova Scotia province, another storm is brewing in the Atlantic Basin, with computer models forecasting parts of the US Northeast and Nova Scotia could be hit again. 

The latest report from the National Hurricane Center states Tropical Storm Philippe was about 70 miles northwest of Anguilla and about 55 miles east-northeast of St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands, moving northwest at 10 mph with sustained winds of 45 mph.

“It made landfall on the island of Barbuda on Monday with 50 mph winds and is now headed away from the Caribbean into the Atlantic, but its tropical-storm-force winds still extend out 175 miles,” according to Orlando Sentinel. 

“On the forecast track, the center of Philippe is expected to pass just north of the British Virgin Islands today and then move away from the northern Leeward Islands beginning tonight,” NHC wrote in the 1100 ET update, adding, “However, the strongest winds and heaviest rains will likely occur in the islands to the southeast of the center.”

Philippe moves slowly northwestward while bringing tropical storm conditions to the northeastern Leeward Islands. pic.twitter.com/mYYMp8mOOb

— CIRA (@CIRA_CSU) October 3, 2023

NHC said, “Little change in strength is forecast during the next day or two, but Philippe could begin to strengthen after midweek.” 

Models expect the storm to turn north and parallel the US East Coast while at sea, with a potential landfall impact area from Maine to Nova Scotia by as early as Sunday. 

So far, the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season has produced 18 named storms and is already above average, according to Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane researcher with Colorado State University. 

Submitted by Gun Owners of America,

After a long debate, the SAFER Banking Act is making its way out of committee and onto the floor of the Senate for a vote.

The Act would allow banks to work with cannabis businesses without penalty. It currently enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate, but there are some sinister consequences for firearms businesses due to loose language hidden in the text of the Act.

As currently written, the law does not sufficiently protect the firearms industry from the abuse of banks or regulators to harm firearms businesses in a manner similar to “Operation Chokepoint” of the Obama era.

Thank you Senator @MikeCrapo for standing up to this nonsense!

As written, the SAFER Banking Act “does not get the job done” to prevent Operation Chokepoint 2.0! 💯 pic.twitter.com/QxTwCLaNV1

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 27, 2023

The law states that Federal Banking regulators can recommend to financial service providers de-bank businesses that they suspect of breaking a rule or condition from a federal agency like ATF.

Consider that currently, the Biden administration has imposed a “Zero Tolerance Policy” on FFLs, which makes mundane and simple mistakes such as misspelling an abbreviation on a form into federal crimes for which a gun store could now be penalized.

ATF’s published data concerning its compliance inspections in 2020 reflects that it conducted 5,823 inspections and found and reported errors in 43.7% of those inspections.

ATF’s compliance inspections for 2022 increased over 2020 by 1,156 inspections to 6,979 inspections, and ATF’s data reflects that it found and reported errors in 45.5% of the inspected FFLs. In summary, a failure to clarify whether the language in the law applies only to banking regulations could result in nearly half of all gun stores losing access to financial services!

Gun Owners know full well how statutory language can be redefined and weaponized with a simple rule change and agency definition.

ATF routinely issues contradictory guidance letters to the firearm industry, refuses to publish the guidance publicly, and has even reversed such guidance in a way that criminalizes millions of customers and shuts down entire companies.

Members of the firearms industry will not only have to deal with rogue ATF regulators in court but could also be cut off from essential financial services because of this “informal guidance.”

In addition, a provision of the law imposes strict liability on account holders who deal with “a threat to national security,” someone involved in “other illicit financing,” or is “engaged in… any other criminal activity.”

This could affect members of the firearms industry even if they were unaware that they were selling to potential national threats or criminals.

For instance, criminals often deceive gun stores by lying on form 4473 to buy firearms illegally. During Operation Fast and Furious, the government even permitted Mexican cartel agents to buy guns from FFLs. Under this provision, firearms businesses could be de-banked for the actions of criminals regardless of whether the FFL was unaware of the criminal activity.

The SAFER Banking Act also clarifies that federal regulators should recommend de-banking businesses whose customers pose a “national security threat,” posing a huge threat to the entire firearm industry. Especially given that national security agencies increasingly label gun owners as “Militia Violent Extremists” or “Domestic Violent Extremists.”

Gun stores have little protection from this extensive and imperfect list of reasons to deny them financial services.

Flaws in @SenSchumer‘s SAFER Banking Act could result in nearly HALF of all gun stores losing access to financial services & destroy the industry as we know it!

This is unacceptable! https://t.co/ji9JIcg7XE

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 27, 2023

So, what are we doing to combat this attack on the firearms industry?

Gun Owners of America supports the Fair Access to Banking Act. This Act aims to prevent large financial institutions that benefit from federal funding, not just anti-gun regulators, from discriminating against the Second Amendment community.

Considering that major banks owe their existence to federal bailouts and federal depository insurance, they shouldn’t dictate the scope of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

The SAFER Banking Act permits financial institutions to bypass federal marijuana restrictions but doesn’t grant the same leniency for gun ownership rights. The Act treats the Second Amendment as inferior.

Gun Owners of America opposes any laws that promote the legal marijuana industry while undermining gun rights in states where marijuana use is legal.

*   *   * 

We’ll hold the line for you in Washington. We are No Compromise. Join the Fight Now.