Luongo: We Are All Djokovic, Now!

Luongo: We Are All Djokovic, Now!

Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

When I’ve talked in the past about the patchwork tyranny post COVID-9/11, I had more mundane things in mind than the fate of a major tennis star.

Novak Djokovic was deported from Australia on Sunday after his appeal to reinstate his visa failed. And it failed not for health reasons but for political ones.

To me, the kinds of terrible rules put in place for ‘public safety’ always conjure up images of casual oppression. Endless videos of pathetic public servants intimidating priests in churches or police arresting pub owners for serving willing patrons.

But it goes far deeper than that. It’s impossible to even conceive of the ways petty bureaucrats and middle managers around the world have destroyed the lives of ordinary people simply trying to get through the day because of a flu.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 insanity Australia has been the poster child for this kind of thoughtless crime against common decency.

Australian Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s decision to revoke Djokovic’s visa was made for political reasons. He didn’t try to hide it. If anything, he was proud of this decision.

Hawke said he accepted Djokovic’s recent Covid-19 infection meant he was a “negligible risk to those around him”, but that he was “perceived by some as a talisman of a community of anti-vaccine sentiment”.

“I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.

“Mr Djokovic is … a person of influence and status.

“Having regard to … Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive Covid-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his unvaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and policies in Australia.”

These are the words of the committed totalitarian. He hides it behind his public responsibilities, in this case the health status of an entire nation. If he’s not being controlled by outside forces (yeah, right) then he’s been infected with that dangerous solipsism which comes with this much raw power.

That corruption cannot be avoided.

But Hawke’s decision stems from Australia’s backing themselves into the corner over COVID-9/11 policy. They cannot be seen as backing down for anyone, especially someone like Djokovic.

To do so, as Hawke points out, would invite questioning the policy. And their policy is sacrosanct.

However, having admitted that Djokovic posed almost no threat of spreading COVID-9/11 the only thing at stake was the Australian government’s power.

This type of decision reveals 1) how deeply unpopular the COVID-9/11 rules are in Australia and 2) how weak the Aussie government’s hold over its people really is.

They could have weathered this if they had just quietly let Djokovic into the country to compete. They could have spun it had they wanted to.

They chose escalating the standoff to make an example of him to the unvaxxed population. There is no hope. You will submit. If we can humiliate Djokovic, just imagine what we can do to you.

And they revealed just how desperate they are.

Bureaucrats like Hawke have no sense of the politics of their decisions. They are order-takers, not order-makers. He was ordered to do this. When this standoff started it was during the height of the big push to drive fear over the Omicron variant of COVID-9/11.

That rollout failed spectacularly.

Omicron has flared up and out so quickly this affair now looks like the most insane application of government paranoia this side of Pyongyang.

Those that started this standoff created the mess and didn’t have the sense to clean it up.

Because they insist on building trailer parks in the face of a Cat-5 hurricane of public anger.

They hoped to send the message that no one can escape the jab. The Davos agenda of health passes and total technocratic control is inevitable. It’s the EU variant of the virus which Hawke’s immigration policies couldn’t stop coming to Australia.

What they wound up with is a whole lotta people shaking their heads.

But, don’t think for a second Australia is done sending messages to the untermenschen. Now, after he’s been deported, barred from competing and earning his living, Djokovic is liable for all the court costs associated with this decision.

Those costs are estimated to be $500,000.

The three judge panel that upheld the lower court ruling avoided any responsibility in the matter, neatly throwing the decision right back on Minister Hawke. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, clearly one of the people pushing this disaster behind the scenes, also left Hawke out to dry.

Next up for Djokovic will a standoff with France over the French Open. France and Davos will hound him until he submits because they think he cares more about his 21st Grand Slam title than he does his own health. It guess they didn’t get his message during the Australian affair.

But their message is very clear. We are in charge. We can make whatever rules we deem necessary. If you challenge them not only will we deny your challenge on arbitrary grounds but we’ll bankrupt you in the process.

And here I thought we in the post-enlightenment West could petition our governments over unjust laws. I thought this was the first world and not some tin pot dictatorship of thin-lipped, fat-headed midwits?

Only the most insane people are cheering this decision today. They are a part of the 29% of Democrats in the US who believe the unvaxxed should have their children taken from them. Sadly, there are still too many in the thrall of the COVID-9/11 mind virus.

But, if you didn’t get the message before the persecution of Novak Djokovic, I hope you get it now. And I hope he continues to be an example for the rest of us.

*  *  *

Join my Patreon if you got the message

BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc
DGB: SXygreEdaAWESbgW6mG15dgfH6qVUE5FSE
AVAX: 0xAf2e0F22307269BE3d936d7E5DbCaEEe8a42e851

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/17/2022 – 20:30

China Halts All Foreign Mail Due To COVID Threat As Tianjin Reports 80 New Cases

China Halts All Foreign Mail Due To COVID Threat As Tianjin Reports 80 New Cases

With the Winter Olympics in Beijing set to start in just a few weeks, the CCP is still struggling to suppress a handful of small but alarming outbreaks of COVID, several of which have involved cases of the omicron variant.

And now, in the capital city, Beijing officials are warning locals not to order items and products from abroad, because they’re worried that COVID might be carried into the country on the outsides of these packages. Or at least that’s what they want the public to think.

Chinese authorities have been warning for years that COVID might be spread on the packaging of foodstuffs and other goods shipped internationally, something that many scientists have questioned, but that Chinese authorities have nonetheless kept alive with their state-controlled media.

One woman who apparently tested positive for the virus, then traces of the virus had been found on the packaging, or so at least Chinese authorities say.

All of this is happening as authorities have imposed tough restrictions on Beijing as it prepares to host the Olympics. For example, all new arrivals to the city must take a virus test within a day of travel to show that they are testing negative, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

Health official Pang Xinghuo told reporters on Monday that the virus had been found on the surface of a letter the infected person had received from Canada, as well as inside the unopened letter, according to AFP.

Dozens of letters from the same batch were tested, and five showed positive traces of COVID, Pang said, including samples from inside unopened letters. Beijing’s CDC said the possibility that the woman was infected by a parcel from another country could not be ruled out.

Nordea’s economists still expect China’s economy to grow at a pace of 5% over the next year, despite the risk posed by omicron. China’s growth outlook stabilized in the last quarter of 2021.

The main factors that adversely affected China’s growth prospects in the second half of 2021 were the tight COVID policy and the real estate sector slowdown. They are expected to continue to dampen. And on a positive note, the shortage of electricity has eased since the start of October. Beijing’s real problem, according to Nordea, is that it doesn’t seem to have an “exit strategy” from its “COVID Zero” lockdown-centric approach.

Meanwhile, in Tianjin, a port city that’s just 130 Km from Beijing, another 80 local cases of COVID have been reported, the biggest daily jump yet. The city and the port are still open and running as authorities have locked down a handful of neighborhoods in the city.

For the record, Tianjin, which is situated about 30 minutes by train from Beijing, is one of China’s largest cities by population and home to one of its most active ports. It is the “recommended” port of entry for goods for the Winter Olympics and operations have not been affected by the outbreak, according to the state-controlled local media.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/17/2022 – 20:00

AMA Defies Supreme Court Ruling, Own Code Of Ethics, Calls For Employer Vaccine Mandates

AMA Defies Supreme Court Ruling, Own Code Of Ethics, Calls For Employer Vaccine Mandates

By Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

The president of the Chicago-based American Medical Association, Gerald E. Harmon, M.D., wrote on Friday in Crain’s Chicago Business that employers should impose COVID vaccine mandates as a condition of employment.

Last week’s decision by the United States Supreme Court invalidating the Biden Administration’s attempt to force employers to do so “should not,” Harmon wrote, “prevent these employers from doing what must be done in the name of public health: requiring vaccines to protect their workers, our communities and our nation from the ravages of this pandemic.”

“Our only hope is that large employers do what’s right—not only for their own employees and their families, but for the health of our nation,” says Harmon.

If only we could hope that Harmon and his association would honor their own code of ethics. The AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.1.1 says this:

Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended treatments so that they can make well-considered decisions about care. Successful communication in the patient-physician relationship fosters trust and supports shared decision making. The process of informed consent occurs when communication between a patient and physician results in the patient’s authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.

That’s a plain statement of the informed consent doctrine, which is among the most widely recognized and time-honored principles of medical ethics here and abroad. Everybody of sufficient age and sound mind is supposed to have right to decide what is to be done to his or her body.

It’s “arguably the most deeply rooted doctrine in contemporary medical ethics,” wrote two medical ethics experts last year in the Wall Street Journal. In that column, a director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of California, Irvine and a law professor at Notre Dame wrote,Authorities rushing to implement mandatory vaccination protocols are ignoring available scientific data, basic principles of immunology and elementary norms.”

The AMA’s Code of Ethics is for physicians, not employers, but that’s precisely what makes Harmon’s indifference to the principle of informed consent so egregious. He is effectively calling on employers to override the physician-patient relationship entirely, thereby avoiding the duty physicians would have to honor it.

That workaround may not fly legally since employers may have a legal duty to get informed consent to coerced vaccinations, at least as some mandate opponents see things. I have no opinion on that; the point here is not about the legalities.

The point, instead, is about doing what is right and what is ethical. It’s the principle that matters, and it should matter not just for physicians. The AMA’s code of ethics properly states that principle and it is rightly applied to any person or entity, including employers, who are in a position to force medical treatment on somebody else. Harmon and the AMA apparently care nothing about that principle.

Harmon went on to cite as “evidence of a vaccine mandate’s effectiveness” the case of United Airlines, which imposed a vax mandate on its employees. That’s not scientific evidence. Harmon ignored countless studies now available addressing many points of debate about the vax.

What we do know is that experts seem to agree that the vax significantly reduces chances of hospitalization or death. But it has also become clear that the vax is of little or no value in reducing spread of the virus to others, which we wrote about last week. That destroys any rationale for mandates by employers or anybody else. Vaccinations affect only the vaccinated so the decision should be left to the individual.

The only other possible rationale for an employer mandate is the hospital and staff overload, which is real in many locations. But that overload results largely from mandates themselves, imposed on healthcare workers, many of whom have quit as a consequence. The Supreme Court upheld that mandate on any recipient of federal funding, which includes most every hospital and provider.

The load on hospitals and healthcare workers is also undoubtedly attributable in large part to the indifference of most of the medical establishments to treatments. The best, newest treatments are in such short supply that that they are now rationed by the federal government. The AMA, like the federal government, systematically ignored therapeutics from the start, focusing almost exclusively on the vaccines and masks as prevention, which has turned out to be futile. Had development and distribution of therapeutics been emphasized early, countless victims might never be reaching the hospital. The AMA shares blame for that.

Finally, Harmon complained about politicized science. “It is most unfortunate that politicization of the virus and the vaccines developed to protect against severe illness and death has become a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to defeating the pandemic.”

The AMA and Harmon are perhaps the least credible voices in America to be complaining about politicized science. They have gone to truly absurd lengths inserting woke, racial politics into healthcare, as documented by RealClear Investigations in a two-part series. A lead editorial in the AMA journal’s August special issue dedicated to racial health disparities called systemic racism “a scientific fact beyond dispute and said all medical journals are morally obligated to document it in their research.”

Even The Atlantic, which is very progressive, ridiculed the AMA and Harmon for the damage their racial politics are inflicting on medical science and on the genuine interests of disadvantaged people. And dissenting from the AMA’s racial politics can jeopardize you job, The Atlantic wrote.

Let’s hope employers are more ethical than Harmon and the American Medical Association.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/17/2022 – 19:30

WEF’s Schwab Gives China’s Xi Propaganda Platform Against “Hegemonic Bullying… Cold War Mentality”

WEF’s Schwab Gives China’s Xi Propaganda Platform Against “Hegemonic Bullying… Cold War Mentality”

With Davos shut down by the latest incarnation of COVID variant, the world’s great-est and good-est decided this year’s get together to tell the world what they should think would be done virtually this year.

None other than the Dr.Evil-esque Klaus Schwab kicked things off in a brief introductory statement that had everything except a pinky-finger-in-the-corner-of-the-mouth:

After urging his fellow elites to “narrow the gap between rich and poor,” Schwab introduced Chinese President Xi Jinping who wasted not time in warning against the “fanning of ideological antagonism and the politicizing of economic, scientific and technological issues.”

Diplomatically careful not to accuse any individual country – but blatantly obvious to anyone not completely red-pilled by Schwab’s heroic introduction of the Chinese leader – Xi warned nations against protectionism, well as “hegemony and bullying,” urging countries to work cooperatively on global challenges.

 “We need to discard Cold War mentality and seek peaceful co-existence and win-win outcomes.”

Our world today is far from being tranquil. Rhetorics that stoke hatred and prejudice abound. Acts of containment, suppression or confrontation arising thereof do all harm, not the least good to world peace and security,” he added, according to a translation.

History has proved time and again that confrontation does not solve problems. It only invites catastrophic consequences.”

Protectionism and unilateralism can protect no one. They ultimately hurt the interests of others as well as one’s own. Even worse are the practices of hegemony and bullying, which run counter to the tide of history.

Xi said the “right way forward for humanity is peaceful development and win-win cooperation.”

Read Xi’s full statement here.

This is the same Xi who is peacefully militarizing islands in the Pacific, recently bullied any dissenters (or media) in Hong Kong, hegemonically pressuring Taiwan’s democratically-elected leaders to accept his rule, and ‘allegedly’ is suppressing millions of Uyghur muslims.

However, amid all the blame-scaping for global unease, Xi’s true fears emerged as he made it very clear that “economic globalization is the trend of the times” and that other nations tightening policies (as China eases) is a recipe for disaster (in the world according to Xi):

“The global low inflation environment has notably changed, and the risks of inflation driven by multiple factors are surfacing.

If major economies slam on the brakes or take a U-turn in their monetary policies, there would be serious negative spillovers.

They would present challenges to global economic and financial stability, and developing countries would bear the brunt of it.”

As we have noted previously, this is likely to become THE global economy story of the first half of 2022 as China is forced to ease (with PPI in the double-digits and growth still above 8%) to forestall a housing crisis and social unrest while the rest of the world is tightening (especially The Fed) amid multi-decade high inflation and political pressures.

We have little doubt that the rhetoric from Beijing will crank up to ’11’ once The Fed starts hiking and China sees huge capital outflows – mostly via crypto.

The forward FX market still expected Yuan to weaken (against the USD) over the next 12 months…

BUT, simply put, one of these two ‘markets’ will be wrong – the market is anticipating dramatic rate-hikes this year by The Fed AND is expecting the Chinese Yuan to strengthen (or weaken less) over the same period…

And we suspect we know which as Rabobank noted earlier:

Whichever way the Fed goes, it will be wrong. Back off, and watch inflation expectations become more entrenched. Press on, and watch things get ugly.”

And finally, if you doubted Xi’s support for one-world-government (presumably based in Beijing), this closing paragraph should clarify things:

Major economies should see the world as one community, think in a more systematic way, increase policy transparency and information sharing, and coordinate the objectives, intensity and pace of fiscal and monetary policies, so as to prevent the world economy from plummeting again. Major developed countries should adopt responsible economic policies, manage policy spillovers, and avoid severe impacts on developing countries. International economic and financial institutions should play their constructive role to pool global consensus, enhance policy synergy and prevent systemic risks.”

We should follow the trend of history, work for a stable international order, advocate common values of humanity, and build a community with a shared future for mankind. We should choose dialogue over confrontation, inclusiveness over exclusion, and stand against all forms of unilateralism, protectionism, hegemony or power politics.”

Translation: Can’t we all just get along… in line behind Beijing.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/17/2022 – 19:00

Don’t Underestimate How Badly The Powerful Need Control Of Online Speech

Don’t Underestimate How Badly The Powerful Need Control Of Online Speech

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone,

Seems like almost every day now the mass media are blaring about the need for speech on the internet to be controlled or restricted in some way. Today they’re running stories about Joe Rogan and Covid misinformation; tomorrow it will be something else.

The reasons for the need to control online speech change from day to day, but the demand for that control remains a constant. Some days it’s a need to protect the citizenry from online disinformation campaigns by foreign governments. Sometimes it’s the need to guarantee election security. Sometimes it’s the need to eliminate domestic extremism and conspiracy theories. Sometimes it’s Covid misinformation. The problems change, but the solution is always the same: increased regulation of speech by monopolistic online platforms in steadily increasing coordination with the US government.

It’s actually pretty comical at this point, once you notice it. It’s like if you had an expensive Prada bag that your friend really coveted and she was always making up excuses to try and take it home with her. “Gosh I’m carrying all these small objects and I have nothing to carry them in!” “You’re going on vacation? I’ll look after your Prada bag for you!” “Oh no you slipped and now you’re clinging to a cliff’s edge! Quick! Throw me your Prada bag!” Once you know what they’re actually after, their attempts to obtain it look clownish and silly.

Whenever I talk about how the immense power structure which the mass media serves and protects has a desperate need to control online speech, I’ll always get a few people objecting that the powerful don’t care about what ideas and information the ordinary riff raff share with each other on internet forums. They just do what they want regardless of public opinion, like Greek gods on Mount Olympus.

And really nothing could be further from the truth. Controlling the thoughts we think about our nation and our world are of paramount importance to our rulers, because it’s only by controlling what we think that they can control how we vote, how we act, and whether or not we get fed up with being exploited and oppressed by a loose alliance of unelected plutocrats and government operatives. There is nothing, literally nothing, that these people would not do to maintain this control. Their very survival depends on it.

Michael Parenti summed this up perfectly in his 2015 book “Profit Pathology and Other Indecencies” with this passage that was recently shared by Louis Allday:

“But they don’t care about what we think. They turn a deaf ear to us,” some people complain. That is not true. They care very much about what you think. In fact, that is the only thing about you that holds their attention and concern. They don’t care if you go hungry, unemployed, sick, or homeless. But they do care when you are beginning to entertain resistant democratic thoughts. They get nervous when you discard your liberal complaints and adopt a radical analysis. They do care that you are catching on as to what the motives and functions of the national security state and the US global empire are all about at home and in so many corners of the world. They get furiously concerned when you and millions like you are rejecting the pap that is served up by corporate media and establishment leaders.

By controlling our perceptions, they control our society; they control public opinion and public discourse. And they limit the range and impact of our political consciousness. The plutocrats know that their power comes from their ability to control our empowering responses. They know they can live at the apex of the social pyramid only as long as they can keep us in line at the pyramid’s base. Who pays for all their wars? We do. Who fights these wars? We do or our low-income loved ones do. If we refuse to be led around on a super-patriotic, fear-ridden leash and if we come to our own decisions and act upon them more and more as our ranks grow, then the ruling profiteers’ power shrinks and can even unwind and crash — as has happened with dynasties and monarchies of previous epochs.

We need to strive in every way possible for the revolutionary unraveling, a revolution of organized consciousness striking at the empire’s heart with full force when democracy is in the streets and mobilized for the kind of irresistible upsurge that seems to come from nowhere yet is sometimes able to carry everything before it.

There is nothing sacred about the existing system. All economic and political institutions are contrivances that should serve the interests of the people. When they fail to do so, they should be replaced by something more responsive, more just, and more democratic.

Preventing their replacement with a system that is more responsive, just and democratic is precisely why our rulers are so keen on controlling the way we think, act and vote. They exert this control with their total domination of the mass media and mainstream education systems, with Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation, and with the rapidly increasing normalization of internet censorship.

The dawn of the internet sparked great hope for those who knew that the ruling power structures of our day retain supremacy by controlling and manipulating people’s access to and understanding of information; the possibility of billions of human minds freely spreading awareness of what’s going on in our world and sharing revolutionary ideas to address our problems spelled beautiful things for our future to anyone with a lucid understanding of the obstacles we face.

Unfortunately, our rulers understood the significance of that moment too. They’ve been working tirelessly to ensure that the internet serves as a net positive for themselves and a net negative for the rest of us, manipulating the large-scale movements of information so that dissident voices are increasingly marginalized and inconsequential while giving themselves the ability to funnel propaganda into public minds far more rapidly and efficiently than ever before. If they succeed in their objectives, ordinary people will wind up no better at sharing unauthorized ideas and information than they were before the internet, while our rulers will be far more effective in controlling the way we think at mass scale.

That they will succeed is by no means guaranteed. We are living in an entirely unprecedented moment in human history with many large-scale systems on the precipice of failure while technological advancement creates many other unpredictable factors; gaps could open up at any time to let light shine through in the massive movements that humanity is poised for. There is no way to accurately predict the future in a situation the likes of which we’ve never seen before, where patterns are crumbling and narrative is hitting white noise saturation point.

Anything can happen. Win or lose, this is a hell of a time to be alive.

*  *  *

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Tyler Durden
Mon, 01/17/2022 – 18:30

Gossip and views about privacy, gold, wealth, asset preservation