Free Republic

Pretty much. All of the trouble and more of serious viral infection with almost none of the benefits of a traditional protein vaccine. Here's something else to consider:


Isn’t It Just a Little TOO Weird?
After well over 100 years of more rather than less successful vaccinations using protein antigens (proteins from either destroyed viruses or bacteria) that do NOTHING directly to any of your cells but train the T and B cells of your adaptive immune system to be on the lookout for the real thing in the future and to make antibodies against them:


1. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that 4 separate companies just happened to use techniques that they had been working on for over 20-30 years of development (or had acquired the rights to) to target mostly cancer cells for chemotherapy for which they had never been able to get approval either because the products didn’t work or because they targeted and messed up OTHER cells than the sick ones?

Consider the thinking that had to have been taking place in corporate headquarters before embarking on such a course:

“Hey, we’ve never been able to get this drug delivery vehicle approved yet. So now, when we’re standing on the edge of the biggest windfall in the history of medicine and are facing stiff competition from other companies to be the first to the trough, what would be the most sure fire way to success? Hmm, hey, I know! Let’s put all our chips on what has been, up to this point, a certain failure.”

And that was supposed to have happened independently 4 times?

I don’t think so.
______***______
2. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that the folks from those four companies just happen to be putting the SAME thing into their different delivery vehicles and are all now using them to carry viral RNA into ANY cells their products come into contact with (with the exception, perhaps, the AstraZeneca product in the UK that actually uses a chimpanzee cold virus as the cargo vehicle which may rely on a specific cell surface receptor to gain entry, but after which it acts in exactly the same way as the other three)?

I’m pretty sure that if any of these companies had been asked, “Why didn’t you use those delivery vehicles to carry in viral antigens?” you would have gotten replies along these lines:

“Because if those viral antigens were introduced directly to the interior of healthy cells, they would not be immediately visible to the innate immune system in order to trigger the training of the adaptive immune system toward the end of specific antibody production”

Or “Because in addition to that being the wrong place to target, the total quantity would be too small and there would be no way for it to exit the cell”

Or “Introducing viral proteins directly into the cytosol of healthy cells could trigger the innate immune system to attack the cell as having been invaded by a virus, the proof being the presence of viral protein where there should be none”

Which all would provoke a series of questions like this:

“So why are you putting viral mRNA into healthy cells?"

"If viral antigens introduced by your delivery vehicle couldn’t get out, then how will the many, many copies of the viral spike protein antigen be able to get out?"

"And if viral proteins introduced by your delivery vehicles into the cytosol of healthy cells could trigger the innate immune system to attack them as having been virally infected, then wouldn’t your product introducing viral mRNA to hijack cellular protein synthesis to produce a giant load of viral protein be even more certain, by the presence of


a. viral mRNA,
b. viral protein, and
c. unregulated protein synthesis,

to trigger the innate immune system to attack those cells as having been virally infected and hopelessly compromised?”

None of which questions those companies would be eager to answer in any truthful way because of the impact it would have on getting an EUA.

So, based on all the above, was there collusion between these pharmaceutical companies to use equally experimental drug delivery systems in essentially exactly the same fashion so that:

A. to turn down one would be to turn down all, leaving the government as the bad guy standing in the way of progress and the single way those companies had identified as the ONLY way that could save billions upon billions of lives but

B. to okay one for emergency use authorization, at least for companies with a strong corporate presence in the US, would be to okay them all for EUA and provide all three EUA access to the federal feeding trough as well as the opportunity to recoup all that money in research and development up until that point they had wasted on these defective targeted drug delivery vehicles, and

C. to hold off official US approval for any one of them because as soon as that happened the EUAs for the other two would immediately end (which would provide lobbyists FOR their own company’s approval and lobbyists against the other companies’ approval by maintaining the EUA status for all three of them steady income and result in lots of “concerned” members of Congress needing to take LOTS of meetings with both groups of lobbyists to help them “understand the nuances of the situation toward eventually, many years down the line, being able to sort it out”?

______***______
3. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that their drug delivery vehicles that were too dangerous to use in treating cancer were allowed, without completing the official FDA approval process proving safety and efficacy, to be used on a frigging COLD virus with a survival rate of over 99.4% in the ~40% of the population that are not already resistant to it like the other 60% have been since before it popped on the scene?

______***______
4. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that there is such an insane push in many countries around the world (and in Democrat states and by a Democrat occupying the White House) to prevent people from working or going to certain stores or restaurants or school or to travel unless they have been vaccinated with just THOSE vaccines whether they actually need them or not or whether they want them or not?

Perhaps politicians of dictatorial bent all over the world are looking at the C19 phenomenon in the same way the pharmaceutical companies do:

Pharmaceutical companies: the chance of a lifetime for an unlimited amount of money and zero liability

Leftist politicians: the chance of a lifetime for an unlimited amount of power and zero accountability

Either of the two groups being the essential player to guarantee the success of the other.

The nations’ people the ones who have to pay for it all and who must, at all costs, be kept by both players in that position:

By the governments—controlling them through a vast interlocking series of feats of social engineering and threats of legal action

By the pharmaceutical companies—using an unending series of variants that make for continual deadly threats.

By the governments—saying “If you don’t comply, we will punish you selfish few for endangering the whole of society.”

By the pharmaceutical companies—saying “If you don’t comply, you could die from this avalanche of disease against which we are your only defense.”

______***______
5. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that those same companies that couldn’t get those products approved by the government for treating cancer either because their products didn’t work or because they caused harm are now being given a pass by the same government to protect them from lawsuits for ANY problems, including the products failing to work as promised or causing injury or death to those taking them (in some cases to people in close contact with recipients and getting contaminated with the products just by physical contact) and to those being forced to take them who refused because they knew the danger those products posed?

______***______
6. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that the doctor and researcher, Dr. Malone, who developed the therapeutic technique of using mRNA has said that NO ONE should ever use it this way and not with those companies’ delivery devices, is getting banned from social media and stories about him are getting deleted by social media groups?

______***______
7. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird that all of the effing social media groups that are run by leftists and who are big financial contributors to Democrat politicians (one of which spent hundreds of millions to set up illegal ballot collection boxes in an attempt to give Biden an edge) who are not doctors, who are not scientists, and who have no frigging clue what they’re talking about scientifically or medically are all promoting the EFF out of these particular products and censoring or suspending users who criticize them?

How is it that at every point that dates back to about that same week early in 2020 when the Chinese claimed the US was responsible for the Wuhan breakout and the media flipped to that narrative in the space of 24 hours, that these social media companies have been in lockstep with whichever way the folks in the government were choosing to spin things; that is, not merely in attitude, but in an almost daily morphing of narrative details, in the development of ad hoc memes used to demonize opponents or to justify the evolving narrative.

It’s at about the same level on chance (and for exactly the same reasons and involving the same players) that the major stories in the major media are the same each day, covered in the same order, using the same catchphrases and keywords, and with no substantive differences in interpretation.

Think of it.

Out of literally billions of things happening each day all around the world, the same few events, involving the same few people, are focused on or ignored in the same way and in the same order by the media presenters, and characterized by them using the same descriptors. And that happens day in and day out.

There is ZERO way that is happening by chance.

Look at the odds of guessing all the digits of the Powerball number and getting them in the right order. Yet, the media has many hundreds of times more players than the Powerball has numbers and yet the media all manage to come up with the same thing, the same order, the same day, and described with the same language day in and day out. By chance? There’s not a effing way in hell.

______***______
8. Isn’t it just a little TOO weird, in spite of everything that is coming to light about the inherent defectiveness of and serious danger posed by these products (especially when defectiveness and danger to far lesser degrees with other products, even vaccines, were sufficient to get them yanked off the market), that all those people are just pushing for more and more use of exactly the same products in exactly the same way to fix a problem that the products already failed to fix?

You could think, perhaps, that just by chance things have unexpectedly turned to shit on the vaccine front and now, by chance, all of these guys are just trying to cover their asses and are doing so in ways that, again, simply by chance, gives the appearance of coordination. The odds of that being chance multiplied by the odds of every single one of all those other operations being chance is one in a number greater than all the atoms in the universe.

When you have THIS many coincidences and THIS many things that just make no sense at all in the context of vaccinations, then you can be sure of two things:

1) It’s no coincidence, and

2) It’s being done for reasons OTHER than vaccinations, reasons they are just refusing to tell you about.

That should scare the shit out of you.

And it should also prompt you to get ready to fight whatever that hidden reason may turn out to be because people who impose defective and dangerous products on people by the billions worldwide, who criticize and bully them for resisting, and who are busy using all that to put over on people some other much larger kind of secretive bullshit, are NOT doing that for any good reason.

Thanks, Karliner.

Thanks, Jane. I see some names from long ago.

Thanks, grey-whiskers. I came back after a long absence.

Thanks, Robert.

Look at you, all unable to look at Bio 101 stuff, think for yourself, and wanting to believe based on authority instead of reason.

Bandwidth? That is such a 1990’s AOL kind of thing to say.

No. It actually works as an artificial virus.

It’ll be 28 years ago this fall. It’s hard to believe how quickly the time has flown by. When I was doing my post-doc, I got accepted to our med school. They told me, “Don’t worry about the money.” But I did. I wish now I had been as bold then as I had with pursuing the doctorate. Oh, well.

At least I’ve enjoyed my time in academic science until the political weirdos decided to drop global warming for what they thought would be a more threatening menace to manipulate people with, and then my school said, “Oh, yeah. We had said before that vaccination was voluntary but in order to get as many people vaccinated as possible, we’re making it mandatory.”

Of course, what that really meant was, “Oh, shit! Almost everyone is telling us to pound sand. The Biden Administration is going to screw us for an ungodly amount of fines. And, no, we’re not even going to wait to see how it turns out in the courts.”

Which, I’ve been happy to point out to them has left them with a pretty huge liability to the people they’ve already fired or successfully coerced into getting shot up with this stuff.

I told them A. I’m never getting vaccinated with something as crazy as that and B. They’re not going to fire me, either and then ccd that letter to a former federal prosecutor who’s working on cases like this and told them I’d send them a copy of my brief, which I did later, also ccd to the attorney in which I went through in great detail all their violations of law, ethical violations, incoherent reasoning and self-contradictions, and serious conflicts of interest.

Their whole Covid policy was one that paid much more attention to what they believed were “the optics” of helping people while utterly ignoring the unintended consequences of deliberately hurting tens of thousands of employees in a variety of ways in order to maybe help a minuscule number of folks to avoid getting infected with a common cold virus that statistically would have almost zero impact on the employee and especially the student population. It was a perfect example of CYA committee-think.

Thanks, bitt.

Thanks, Jenny.

I wrote some of this for a woman who said she didn’t understand what I was saying about the immunology and the viral mRNA vaccines but that she, herself, had suffered adverse events from one of them.

Kevmo

Note: This was originally written in May, 2020, long before the crime of century committed (in the months leading up to and after the 2020 elections) by the Democrat Party in collusion with and the help of one of the major parties to benefit from the scam, as well as before their co-opting the C19 vaccines as their principal means to continue their social engineering and reification of the imaginary danger of the relatively innocuous agent of respiratory infection they had already repurposed to benefitting themselves as described above.

Events since then have pretty much fully vindicated what I had written back near the beginning of it all.

I saw that. I’m glad to see you still here. I’ve been elsewhere on Facebook causing trouble over the viral C19 artificial virus matter in the larger context of the C19 social engineering scam.

I’ll have to see what the lay of the land is here on the subjects.

I have enjoyed CO2 Science since I was a graduate student in 1999 or 2000. It’s such a great compilation of all things CO2.

Sorry, I couldn’t tell if “title” meant my title for what I was saying about that upon which I was commenting or its own title that already appeared in the link. Since the latter would have been redundant, I went with the former.

No, the Trump administration is hardening its attack on the neo-Lysenko tactics of a relatively small cadre of Maurice Strong’s philosophical fellow travelers who have made a career of abusing science to promote their political agenda through apocalyptic fear-mongering while simultaneously trying to knee-cap those who continue to use science to draw attention to their abuse of it.

These apocalyptics have been at it hot and heavy since the end of WW2, trotting out a wide array of “this is going to kill us all if we don’t _______”, the “this” inevitably being the product of capitalism and US political oppression, the “________” inevitably being the adoption of a world-wide planned economy and the elimination of nation states overseen by the wise gnomes of socialism.

The AGW ploy is their n-th iteration of this idea and where they finally caught on to something the possibility of which had been staring them in the face for over one hundred years.

The reason it took them so long is basically threefold:

1) Lack of imagination on their part. 2) Lack of an insufficiently gullible public combined with the lack of a means sufficiently ubiquitous to cultivate and exploit that gullibility. 3) One hundred years ago the same group of people were still operating on the basis of their movement’s second iteration of their paradigm that formed the basis of the French Revolution.

The first iteration was the claim by the ideologues behind the French Revolution that the established order had taken control of man and had corrupted him from his original state of Noble Savage by subjecting him to the manipulation of a group controlling him through the institutions of a society they had created to hold him in bondage to use for their own advantage, those institutions being the monarchy, the church, and business. Salvation of the masses lay in releasing the Terror to destroy the existing order so the true nature of man could reassert itself, of course requiring the wise leadership of the revolutionary council.

The second iteration was refashioned from the first by Marx and Engels in a work for hire by a group of international socialists looking to provide a philosophical basis for their attempts to control society by controlling the economy by controlling the creation of goods and services by controlling the guilds and trade unions by controlling who could enter them as well as who could compete against them by controlling what could be created that posed a risk of making their goods and services obsolete and, so they claimed, by invention and innovation condemn society to alienating change and turmoil by, well, overthrowing the established order created and controlled by the socialists who controlled the guilds and trade unions.

So in the scheme of Marx and Engels, even the socialists, as coalitions of business owners and trade unionists, trying to limit and control the economy became the next established order of the bourgeoisie exploiting the worker that had to be destroyed so that the true nature of human society could reassert itself and create a society consistent with man’s true nature, of course requiring the wise leadership of the revolutionary council.

This second iteration was divided into the competing factions of A. the revolutionary Marxists promoting the seizing of the established order by violent revolution and the building of the new order on the rubble of the old and B. the progressive socialists promoting the overthrow of the established order by the infiltration and transformation of the social and governmental institutions of which it was comprised, by the “long march through the institutions.”

Russia, Germany, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Venezuela got versions of the first. The US, Great Britain, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand got versions of the second. Chile under Allende got something in between.

But something happened after the late 19th and early 20th century to the expectations of either the Ebola form (Communist) or slow virus form (progressive socialist) of social revolution. The maligned existing social order ended up giving the worker far, far more than anything either the communists or the socialists had promised, making both of them look like walnut size-brained dinosaurs of a long ago dead world.

Except those guys still haven’t given up their true goal of total dominating of all human society, which led to their third iteration.

Since WW2 they have promoted the idea of apocalyptic destruction of the common man caused by their capitalist enemies’ effing with the established order of nature.

This has been the theme of every apocalyptic natural calamity meme since at least WW2:

“Western industrialized capitalism is screwing with Mother Nature and she’s pissed. Join us in our effort to placate her and save yourself by helping us to limit and take over all these enemies of Nature who are assaulting our fragile natural order on this blue-green spaceship we call earth by voting Democrat and supporting socialism everywhere. Your very life depends on it!”

Yes, I did, though I wish there was an edit function.

Well, I’ll just try inserting the edited version here:

Every major social, economic, and political problem in the US was either created or deliberately exacerbated by the progressive socialist movement.

It all started in the late 1800s with the progressive socialists, newly arrived from Europe, setting their sights on taking over and taking down the United States from the ground up.

They weren’t anything new.

In their European form, they had long been known to the founding fathers. John Adams referred to their grands-pères in the French genesis of “ideology” as the “science of idiocy,” the art of sinking deeper than any diver had ever gone into the depths of government and never finding a bottom.

The depths of the US federal government of the last quarter of the 19th century, though, were very shallow compared to the present day, in spite of the effort required to mount and successfully prosecute the Civil War.

And most of what we now consider to be public or secular institutions existed back then but mostly as the creations of private citizens working together in voluntary association toward goals of mutual interest. The major universities had been started as seminaries by religious institutions. Most charitable organizations, social service organizations, orphanages, and hospitals had been established and run by religious institutions. Many schools were founded and operated by religious institutions or by groups of parents of children within a small region.

So when the progressive socialists first arrived on these shores after all the hard work of nation-building had already been done by others more intelligent, daring, and forthright than them, they found a place with a national government still far too shallow for their purposes, but a place far too robustly a challenge for them in the independence of its states, its businesses, its social institutions, and too hopeful in the upward mobility of its people, immigrant and native alike, to be allowed to continue giving the lie to their already laughable worldview that identified them, the progressive socialists, as the saviors of mankind.

I mean, as missionaries, what do you do when the natives you came to save already have a better life as the product of their own efforts than anything you could offer, already have a demonstrable hope for even more in the more immediate future than anything your social revolution could deliver, with the source of it all being the very thing that you claim to be the supreme evil oppressing them?

Do you say, “Hey, screw it! I must have been wrong,” then jettison your obviously wrong beliefs, go native, get naked, take up surfing, and enjoy a new and hitherto unexpected prosperous life or do you burrow into the system and use the system to destroy the system?

Given the social and psychological pathology that animates the members of this quasi-religious sect of progressive socialism, you will destroy anything, no matter how wonderful, no matter how much more fully it is actually delivering on what, as described by you and your fellow secular missionaries, is still but a future promise, the fulfillment of which depends on the eventual success of the revolution.

Why?

Because it means they already have what you are only promising. It means that your understanding of the world is deeply flawed. It means your group’s characterization of itself as the expression of the praxis of history and savior of mankind is ludicrously wrong.
And, the cruelest blow of all, it means that nobody needs you. So you set about to seize control and make them need you, if only for nothing more than to prevent themselves from being harmed even more deeply by you needing them to need you.

But how do you even get started doing that when everything is so decentralized and distributed throughout society, every part pretty much independent of any central governmental authority that you could seize and use to control everything? Easy, you start gathering those widely distributed eggs and putting them into a series of ever larger administrative/regulatory baskets built by you to your own specifications and marketed as better, safer, more modern, and more moral.

And when that basket is big enough and contains enough of society’s precious eggs, then anything that threatens the basket you can claim threatens society and go on to promise that it’s not going to happen, not as long as you guys are around to defend the little guy, all the while hoping the little guy doesn’t catch on that it was you guys who put him into that spot in the first place: if he has you, he suffers; but if he doesn’t have you, you tell him he will be destroyed.

The question was just where to begin. Among a population that was mostly rural and had a low population density because it was spread out over a very large territory, that was lacking in easy ways to get around and to communicate, among all the towns and cities, among all the many social institutions, which locations and which tactics offered the greatest chance of success?

The personal environment that the progressive socialists found on arrival was a vastly different personal environment than today. “Personal entertainment” back then consisted mostly of things one actually had to do rather than passive viewing or listening. The only ways to communicate were by talking face to face or by written media. And though there was telegraphy, that was still only point-to-point, person-to-person communication.

The principal venues of human interaction were the home, the school, the job, the church, or recreation. Recreation or sports among adults, though, as a result of a couple centuries of Puritanism, was only just beginning to come into popularity. And there was nothing geographically or temporally immediate that was done at a distance any greater than one’s own voice could carry.

The most prevalent forms of mass communication took place in church services, classroom instruction, political rallies, public lectures, and plays. The only anonymous forms of mass communication were books, newspapers, and tracts.

So there were only a limited number of places that the progressive socialists could have significant personal contact to build useful relationships yet a necessary degree of anonymity to conceal their motives, and a sufficiently great audience, to start their attempted takeover of US society. Those places were the churches, the schools, and the workplace.

Of those three, only the church simultaneously combined the largest numbers of people from the highest levels of business and society with direct access to major social institutions that reached an even greater percentage of the “oppressed” population who could be persuaded that they were yearning for was not a better job and higher income but liberation.

The primary religion of the United States was Christianity. The primary Christian churches were Protestant. And the captains of industry and the most influential people of society, regardless of whether they actually believed any of it, were to be found in the large, well-established Protestant churches. Through the social gospel movement, the progressive socialists infiltrated and co-opted major Protestant churches.

This had both organizational and propagandistic advantages.

Organizationally, the Protestant churches opened a way for the progressive socialists to gain control of the largest charitable and social service organizations in the nation, which in turn gave them access to the downtrodden to whom those services were offered.

Propagandistically, through the seminaries supplying pastors and other religious workers, it enabled them an expeditious way of disseminating to the church-going public the modernist reinterpretations of classic Biblical doctrines, the primary one being the Marxist view of the eschaton, the meaning and focus of all human history. It was something that was right here and now instead of somewhere in the sky, by and by.

And the true apocalypse was not some far-off future spiritual battle waged by heavenly armies against a supernatural foe. It was apocalypse now, the present day campaign against that new church of mammon, of materialism and greed that was crucifying the poor on a cross of gold.

And it called out for a new generation of reformers who could use their social power, influence, and wealth to fight for those oppressed by the godless pursuit of filthy lucre, you know, the same way that Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other reformers, such as John and Charles Wesley, sought to liberate the common man from the suffocating spiritual oppression of ancient organized religion (or as their members-only characterization put it: the destruction of the existing order of capitalist oppression of the masses to be carried out by human social revolutionaries—and not too much later their version of school teachers would be referring to themselves as ‘change agents’). And did not Jesus, himself, tell them in the gospels that their future judgment would depend on how they treated “the least of these,” the naked, the poor, and the imprisoned, in the here and now?

This was still on display about seventy-five years later in the gala thrown by the National Council of Churches and the City of New York to honor Ozzie Davis for his humanitarian accomplishments, attended by a multitude of everyone who was anyone, featuring a live jazz combo, hot hors d’oeuvres, and a great open bar before the dinner of roast beef, green bean almandine, and interminable laudatory speeches leading up a slightly less interminable speech expressing heartfelt gratitude at having been so honored by these deeply compassionate people whose only goal was to lessen human suffering and desperation through a variety of enlightened, intelligently designed, and publicly-funded social programs concerning which he, Ozzie Davis, considered himself so blessed and fortunate to have been allowed to be such a small part of it all.

Since Marxism itself was a reactionary, derivative, and fairly unimaginative reworking of the most common Judeo-Christian social and historical myths and because church attendance back then was very common, the progressive socialist message could still easily be linked thematically to helping the poor, giving oneself in sacrifice, fulfilling the law of Christ, ministering to the afflicted, setting the captives free, loving one’s enemies, and doing unto others blah blah blah blah, all perceived as noble, humanitarian, and moral goods.

This ready-made thematic resonance between Marxist-lite progressive socialist-reworked Christian eschatology and a large section of at least nominally Christian society, especially the wealthier and more powerful individuals of society, offered the progressive socialists an immediate and advantageous venue to start altering the self-identity of large numbers of the nation’s most influential citizens.

The means by which this would be accomplished lay in convincing them that, while all these things were, indeed, moral goods, in the deeper spiritual scheme of things, however, putting their own hands to the plow and not looking back, taking direct action in the here and now to bring these things to pass, raised them all to a higher, or at least a more immediate, plane of religious importance and social imperative.

That was their private, religious tack.

The public and secular part of their strategy was directed toward business, education, and city government.

Starting first in the two largest American cities of Chicago and New York, but especially in Chicago, and from the helms of the charitable and social service organizations created by the religious institutions they had set on the path of righteousness to fundamental transformation, they created parallel secular organizations funded by the city that eventually became departments of the city, and from there were expanded into state and national versions.

It was an early example of the strategy of “duplicate and replace” that would be used by leftists everywhere over the coming decades. After WW2, the communists in Czechoslovakia created a police force parallel to the longstanding official organization but completely loyal to them. When it was in place and ready to go, they simply eliminated the preexisting one rather than waste time and effort trying to coerce the existing officials and police of the old regime to adopt their decidedly different view of law.

This strategy was repeated throughout the leftist world. Most recently, Barry Obama had been gearing up to do the same by his militarizing of many federal agencies that had no law enforcement duties and by calling for a national police force powerful enough to rival the US military.

The objective of the progressive socialists around the turn of the century, then, was to supplant what amounted to a federation of independent, widely distributed charitable organizations, to use the connections with highly placed members of society and the city government they had cultivated through them and the churches, and to duplicate, expand, and incorporate into city government secular versions of those same organizations.

To lock it all into place, they created the licensing requirements for the personnel that would work in those organizations. They created the college departments. They designed the coursework and degrees required for that licensing. In the interests of public safety and uniform quality of product, they required licensing of similar organizations not yet fully under their or under the city’s control (more and more, amounting to one and the same thing), requiring them, among the conditions, to have on staff people who had successfully completed their required course of college training to become licensed social workers.

Then to broaden the avenue to more direct and unappealable access to families, because it was facilitated by force of government, they created juvenile courts, family courts, and child and family welfare agencies. They deliberately played off the xenophobia of the Protestant elite in both business and government by casting those agencies, created and managed exclusively by them, as indispensable for controlling the poorly-educated, mostly non-English speaking, mostly Catholic, beer and wine-swilling immigrant families too stupid or too uncaring to limit family size.

And at the same time that one group of progressive socialists was shaking down their high society contacts in government, church, and business, their coworkers were busily at work organizing labor unions against them. A crucial factor for success in extorting employers as well as expanding the need for social services was finding a way to limit the number of available workers.

Why would they want to limit employment? Because it would give them control over business.

If that number could be driven down, then both competition for scarce workers and the resulting increases in pay would be high. But the presence of a large immigrant population made up of large families who were eager for the whole family to work, whether on the business premises or at home doing piece-work, presented a great obstacle to the labor organizers.

This was overcome in three ways:

1) By getting government sanction of labor unions and the requirement that no employer could hire anyone who was not a member of a union,
2) By limiting the number of people admitted to unions, and
3) By reducing the overall number of people who were available and willing to work.

Their progressive socialist fellow travelers in the newly-created social services bureaucracies worked with them on the third way in deliberate symbiosis by agitating for legal restrictions on “child” labor, by defining upward the notion of what age constituted “a child,” and by pushing through requirements for mandatory universal school attendance that was eventually extended through high school.

Their tag team approach to social revolution with their fellows in the labor movement had several powerful and long-lasting effects:

1) It dried up the large cheap labor supply of immigrants of all ages,

2) It vastly increased poverty among these families now deprived of their income by the actions of progressive socialists. That poverty and all its attendant circumstances in turn provided justification for the progressive socialists to ask for more funds and more power to “address” the urgent crisis that they themselves had created amongst the lower classes.

The not-so-implied threat was that the crisis could destabilize and threaten society unless those whose expertise in the nature and function of society, the sociologists, and those whose expertise in the nature of societal dysfunction and the means to counter it, the social workers, were sufficiently empowered to act before it was too late. It was a ploy that these folks and their descendants would use again and again right up to the present day.

3) It necessarily increased the number of domestic problems exacerbated by the progressive socialists’ artificial creation of poverty. They used this domestic dysfunction to call for even more funding and power for family courts and child and family welfare agencies to deal with the urgent crisis. This was an early version of the politics of self-interest employed later by:

A. FDR, who used federal welfare to co-opt black families and alienate them from the Republican Party which had been their party of choice since before the Civil War, their ensuing poverty caused by that welfare then blamed on the Republicans.

B. LBJ, who designed his War on Poverty drive many black families into even greater poverty by eliminating a father or man in the home as a requirement for continuing to receive federal welfare, leading to an explosion of crime and drug use in less than ten years, increased difficulties for kids in school, all of which were used to launch urgent appeals that even more money and authority be given to the same people who caused the problems to fix them through programs designed to

i. Get kids started in school even earlier (Head Start),
ii. “Help” struggling mothers and infants (WIC), as well as to
iii. Encourage mostly minority mothers to climb out of poverty by aborting their illegitimate babies,

all the while warning them not to support Republicans who could only be counted upon to take away all those wonderful things.

C. Jimmy Carter and later Bill Clinton, who used the Community Reinvestment Act to force lending institutions (evil business) to make loans to low income people who were incapable of servicing the debt because “even poor people have a right to own their own home,” leading to defaults on loans, greater poverty, the creation of the toxic assets crisis, all laying the groundwork for calls to solve the problem by giving more money and more government control over banking and financial services to the very people who created the problem,

D. Barry Obama, in an address to the SEIU at Loyola, who called for the establishment of government programs that would meet all the needs of the poor so they could be converted into a political constituency in perpetuity.

4) It led to larger numbers of now-unemployed youth looking for other ways to earn some income for their families or to occupy their time, which led to the creation of the concept of the “juvenile delinquent,” which led to the progressive socialists demanding more money and power for juvenile courts, for juvenile detention centers, for the seizing of children from those dangerous homes capable of producing such “delinquents” and placing them in institutions or in foster care to deal with this urgent social crisis.

All these things served only to increase social dysfunction and criminal behavior at the same time they furthered the assault by the progressive socialists on the institution of the family, the formerly more-limited city governments, and the businesses and wealthy citizens who were taxed to fund it all.

At the same time that the progressive socialists considered all three to be their targets for destruction to further the revolution, they comforted and organized the poor by telling them they were victims of the wealthy business owners but they encouraged the wealthy business owners by telling them that their high taxes and philanthropy were truly doing the Lord’s work in helping to care for these, the least of the Lord’s brethren.

All of this laid the foundation for targeting the existing, very excellent US school system, including the newly-created (but not by them) public schools. In the present day some mistakenly assume that literacy in late 19th century America was not widespread. It was, however, nearly universal, at a much higher level of ability, at a much earlier age than now, and all accomplished before the progressive socialists took over education in the US. When they did, they implemented what they claimed were modern and scientific methods of pedagogy, their sales pitch being that because they were recent and allegedly scientific, they must be better.

In the colleges and universities, the progressive socialists branched out from their newly-created departments of social work, sociology, and psychology to take over the schools of teacher training. Once there they were able to train prospective teachers in their progressive world view. They controlled the licensing requirements for teachers. And they did as much as they could to impose those requirements on private and parochial schools.

Their collusion with their counterparts in the labor movement to dry up the labor pool through restrictions on “child labor” and mandatory school attendance, once it was extended beyond 8th grade to high school, vastly increased the number of high schools (The reason some places like Chicago still have grammar schools of grades 1-8 is because 8th grade was the top grade for most students, a relatively small number going on to “high” school, and an even smaller number going on to college). This, in turn, vastly increased the number of teachers required, who would then largely be supplied from the schools of education that had been taken over by the progressive socialists. Compulsory attendance that led to the creation of truancy officers, combined with increasing the required number of years in school by almost 50%, served to feed ever larger numbers of truant kids and their families back into the juvenile and family courts and city social welfare organizations that also had been designed, staffed, and run by progressive socialists.

But that wasn’t enough for them.

On the private side, they were expanding into the fields of entertainment and journalism to shape public opinion, and had already established a base in what had become the progressive churches, but those were Protestant churches, and the majority of the poor immigrant kids in the public schools from Italy and Ireland were Catholic.

Now that they had started to take over the public school system through mandating compulsory attendance and restricting child and youth employment, they moved to expand their control by implementing a curriculum to facilitate the inculcation of their political views in what was by then their single largest captive group in the US.

They did this in at least four ways.

The first way was through the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education formed in 1913. In 1917, at taxpayer expense, the Commission published their manifesto, Principles of Secondary Education. It was a progressive socialist tract that turned on its head the recommendations of the Gordon Commission from Harvard made a couple of decades earlier that had set high educational standards for high schools to make sure those not going on to college would have a first rate education.

The Principles of Secondary Education basically said that all that intellectual stuff could be pursued by those going on to college and stressed, instead, the necessity of “producing” citizens with worthy social attitudes who would make worthy use of their time engaging in worthy activities of benefit to the community.

The Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education later adopted another name: The National Education Association.

The second was to gain control of state education agencies and curriculum requirements.

The third was to gain control of publishers of educational materials to make sure that their content was consistent with what they wanted the students to know (or not to know).

The fourth was to start extending the school downward to kindergarten and pre-K, to institute before and after school programs, and to start promoting the “if you want a good job get a good education—meaning college” line to divert students from the trades (and helping the trades to keep their numbers low and their demand and remuneration high) and into four more years of school in college, thus giving them the single largest chunk of children’s lives for up to 18 years to “educate” them in the ways of progressive socialism.

Of course, whatever they did that screwed the kids up was used, in the same way their comrades in social work and politics used both intended and unintended consequences, as an excuse to demand ever more time, money, resources, and authority to address the problem. Then a few years later the problems caused by their fix would be used in the same way to push for the adoption of the next latest advance in pedagogical innovation.

But the blame for the problems would always be placed on something out of their control, the “home environment,” maybe “latchkey kids,” a phenomenon created largely by their social engineering, on the parents, on TV, on video games, on cell phones and “personal entertainment” and on the students themselves for being “learning disabled” or “dyslexic” or ADHD, or just boys, the goal being to enlarge their control over an ever-growing educational territory.

The one place, though, the blame was never, ever placed was on the education industry itself or its employees, as seen by its hysterical opposition to standards for teacher accountability, charter schools, home schooling, and measurements of skills and knowledge outcomes as a measure of educational success or failure; in other words, anything that would lessen their authority, diminish their respectability, encroach on their territory, or threaten their educationist version of the Brezhnev Doctrine: once something was under their control it would forever be under their control.

And so, in addition to taking over religious institutions, politics, popular entertainment, and the media, to keep it all going the progressive socialists created a vertically-integrated means of indoctrination in progressive socialism that is older and more entrenched than any other of its kind in the world.

What they have created in the education system of the United States is a standing wave of progressive socialism. Their twin goal is to keep it from being disrupted and to keep pumping up its amplitude.

But now the progressive socialists have a serious new rival:

1) It practices many of the same strategies of takeover that they pioneered and in some of the very states that have become the strongholds of progressive socialism,

2) Its origin, like that of progressive socialism and Marxism, was a self-serving and rather lame refashioning of Judeo-Christian history and dogma with a twist, the twist being that THEY, going all the way back to the beginning of time, are the ones it was really all about,

3) Its worldview, like that of progressive socialists, holds that the entire world system has become corrupted, and whose self-identity, like that of the progressive socialists, holds that they have been set apart by reality itself to purge the world of its corruption.

4) It tries, like the progressive socialists did (but not as successfully because of their obviously alien appearance) to keep it all on the down-low by characterizing itself in public as something other than what its members, strenuously and continuously, in the privacy of their meeting places characterize themselves to be.

5) It is able, like the progressive socialists were able to do with the socialist anarchist bombers of the late 19th/early 20th centuries engaged in terrorism against the same enemies of the progressive socialists, to cast themselves as more moderate by the contrast with those of their number whose fundamental beliefs and goals were identical but who engaged in acts of extreme violence and, so deflect attention from themselves, the peace-loving who want only to be part of the broad tapestry that is this vibrant and diverse experience in American tolerance and mutual respect. Uh huh.

6) Its goal, like that of the progressive socialists, is the fundamental transformation of all societies of the corrupt world system into their system, by any means necessary—though here and in other Western countries, just like the strategy pursued by progressive socialists a century ago and ever since, it is achieved by stealth, subterfuge, and the co-opting of existing institutions of the society they aim on taking over, a method their political tacticians in the Muslim Brotherhood describe as “cultural jihad.”

Thanks.

Read The Graves of Academe by Richard Mitchell, formerly professor at Glassboro State Teacher’s College, available in its entirety in the Underground Grammarian section at www.sourcetext.com, along with his other books, the first being the very excellent, Less than Words Can Say, which I first read, I believe, in the early 1980s.

He had a long series of newsletters called The Underground Grammarian which were dedicated to striking terror in the hearts of those who darken understanding by use of jargon and deliberately obfuscatory speech or what I call seemingly meaningful language and what Francis Schaefer referred to as “semantic mysticism.” People from around the country from all sorts of walks of life would send in examples that he would feature and comment on. It appeared that a significantly large number were from the fields of education and government.

I used this in a story when two kids wanted to butter up a teacher to get him to spring them from study hall so they could go to the library and hash out a plot:

​Frank was waiting for him.
​“Okay, look, after the bell we go to Mr. Filsinger and ask him for a pass to the library.”
​The bell rang.
​“Just play along.”
​Mr. Filsinger took roll, issued instructions, and settled back with a book. ​Frank raised his hand and coughed. Mr. Filsinger glanced up and waved him forward. Frank nodded in Arnold's direction. Arnold followed him to the front.
​“Mr. Filsinger,” Frank began. “Arnold and I are working on a research project and—oh hey, that's a great book.”
​Mr. Filsinger closed it and looked at the cover.
​Frank continued. “I think the author does a superb job of delineating the instructional parameters of learning thresholds and their impact on the learner's self-referencing in the context of learner/facilitator-perceived importance of temporally-distributed content-related instructional modules—you've got to be working on your master's degree.”
​“Uh, yes—yes, I am. . . That's, uh, a very good synopsis of this book.”
​“Well, Arnold and I are working on a research project of our own and we'd like to go to the resource center.”
​Mr. Filsinger filled out a hallpass and handed it to Frank.
​“Just return before the end of the hour.”

​The empty hall echoed with the chirps of their basketball shoes. They walked by the door to the gymnastics room where the coach was urging some poor slob to expend more strength to reach the top of the rope by telling him just how little he actually had.
​“What was the name of that book?”
​“Learning to Fail.”
​“And what did you say to him—you know, the synopsis?”
​“I don't know and he didn't, either.”
​“No, come on.”
​“Okay, uh. . . daily homework that makes sense helps the student to learn more and feel better about himself and the class.”
​“So why didn't you just say that?”
​“Because it's so much more impressive the other way. Besides, we're dealing with someone who's going for his master's in education and we did want a pass to the library, remember? We had no choice but—as he would say it—to employ procedures that would maximally impact him toward that objective.”

I believe the many examples of semantic mysticism sent to him from schools, from teacher ed programs, is what led him to write The Graves of Academe and begin to explore the origins of what had led, by his day, to the absolutely moronic state of what passed for education. He correctly identified some of the principal players but he didn’t appear to connect them or their movement to the invasion of the progressive socialists only a couple of decades earlier.

I had found a book a few years ago from the U of Chicago Press about the creators of the concept of the “juvenile delinquent” here in Chicago. I had briefly skimmed through it and noted the time, place, academic pedigree, and political orientation of its creators.

I remembered all the nutty crap I saw in my teacher ed program in what was then the highest ranked program of teacher education in decades in the 37 states accredited by the National Council of Teacher Accreditation. I remembered one of my professors telling me about one of the evaluators, who was particularly hard-assed and a NUN, saying that she believed that no private college or university should be able to have a department of teacher education, that they should all be controlled by the state. I saw all the same nutty crap whether it was Illinois or Kentucky or New York. And then I read The Graves of Academe and I knew what I had seen all had a common history.

I remembered that Chicago was a hotbed of the early labor movement, well, the part of it here taken over by progressive socialists, though their later political symbionts, the Democrat Party, had earlier in the South during Reconstruction had created labor unions for the purpose of excluding black artisans and tradesmen, now free men and mostly Republican, from competing with them.

I remembered how Chicago was a major center of Communist and far left activity in the earlier part of the 20th century with Frank Marshall Davis, and Valerie Jarrett’s father and father-in-law, as well as the parents of one of Obama’s first advisors, David Axelrod. Of course, there was later folks like Bill Ayers and his wife.

I remembered the social gospel movement and the prominent place it had in Chicago history. I seemed to recall that William Jennings Bryant’s remark about crucifying mankind on a cross of gold was made here in Chicago. I remembered how it was about that same time that many prominent Protestant seminaries had been taken over by what some referred to as “modernism,” that is, the reinterpretation of Biblical history from a naturalist viewpoint and the reinterpretation of Biblical doctrine from a political point of view.

And I thought about what the federal government was like back then and what life APART from the federal government was like at that time and how a federal government that the progressive socialists could take over and use did not then exist and that they would be forced to roll their own and thought about just what they would have to do to make it happen.

And then all those things just came together and I saw how and why they did it.

Remember, there are none so evil in creation as those who were made in the image of God. Satan, as a renegade created being, has power and incorporeality and comparative immortality on his side, but he’s a piker in evil compared to man.