C-VIRUS BY THE NUMBERS #1

STATISTICS PLAY A VITAL PART IN DETERMINING HOW DANGEROUS AND HOW VIRULENT COVID-19 ACTUALLY IS.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO POSTS LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS TO DATE.

Email

March 9, 2020

Coronavirus Codswallop -- By the Numbers

By Brian C. Joondeph

"Codswallop" is one of those interesting words that might have been used by Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia in a dissenting opinion, or by conservative intellectual William F. Buckley in describing some liberal policy.
It's a British expression that refers to words or ideas that are foolish or untrue — in other words, nonsense.
While codswallop is a good description of the entire Democrat agenda, today I will restrict its use to the hysteria surrounding the coronavirus outbreak, media fear-mongering, and resulting public panic.
Big media are all about ratings, view, and clicks, hence their axiom, "If it bleeds, it leads."  A viral outbreak is the perfect story, on par with a missing Malaysian airliner or a celebrity football player named OJ on trial for murder.
The added bonus is that any negative news can be laid at the feet of a president loathed by the media, who just so happens to be running for re-election.  The media are in full campaign mode, trying desperately to drag the carcass of one of their corpselike candidates across the presidential finish line.
Stoking fear over quarantines and supply chain disruptions has sent the stock market on a downward roller coaster ride.  One of President Trump's major achievements is the roaring economy.  Taking the stock market down 25% or more may help the Democrats.  But by the numbers, the economy is still roaring, bolstered by the February jobs report of 273,000 added jobs, more than expected, and record-low 3.5% unemployment.
Despite the hair-on-fire reporting of coronavirus news, let's look at some actual numbers, rather than the codswallop from CNN or MSNBC.  Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Dashboard are illustrative.
At the time of this writing, there are 107,352 cases worldwide, 3,646 deaths, and 60,558 recoveries.  Fifteen of those deaths occurred in the U.S.  The odds of recovering are far higher than the odds of dying.
Cases in mainland China have peaked, with few added cases over the past week.  Cases elsewhere are on the rise, following the same pattern as China in early February.  Recoveries are rising at an even faster rate.
Granted that China may be better equipped to institute mandatory quarantines and travel restrictions under their command and control government, the pattern is similar to the disease course for other viral epidemics.
Anthony Fauci, M.D., of the National Institutes of Health and a member of the Trump administration's task force, gave some perspective in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial:

The median age of the patients was 59 years, with higher morbidity and mortality among the elderly and among those with coexisting conditions (similar to the situation with influenza).
The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.

In other words, the coronavirus may be a nastier version of the seasonal flu, potentially fatal for the elderly and infirm.  How many Americans die from the flu each day?  Let's ask the CDC.
Influenza and pneumonia caused 55,672 deaths in the U.S. in 2017, or 153 persons per day.  As a reminder, only 15 have died from the coronavirus to date, the number dying in any four-hour period from the flu.
Over the past decade, influenza has affected between 9.3 and 45 million persons each year, depending on the flu severity.  Hospitalizations for the flu have ranged from 140,000 to 800,000 persons per year, and deaths varied between 12,000 and 61,000 each year.
These numbers, in America only, far eclipse the number of coronavirus fatalities worldwide, about 3,600 thus far.  This could and will likely change, but are the numbers worthy of the hair-on-fire reaction from cable news anchors and Democrat politicians?
Remember the coronavirus mortality rate of 3.4% pushed by the World Health Organization, the global Deep State's health mouthpiece?  President Trump said that number was too high and was excoriated by the liberal media, eagerly willing to trade a bunch of dead Americans for a Trump defeat in November.
It turns out the president was correct.  Health and Human Services assistant secretary Admiral Brett Giroir declared, "The best estimates now of the overall mortality rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.1% and 1%."
For comparison, the fatality rate for the seasonal flu is 0.1%.  The coronavirus fatality rate is likely similar to the 0.1–1% figure based on confirmed cases.  How many individuals have a normal cold, when in reality they have the coronavirus, and recover after a week?  That would mean that far more are infected but are unreported, as their infection is a nonevent, making the fatality rate lower than reported.
Look also at past viral illnesses, far more lethal than the coronavirus.  The fatality rate for MERS and SARS was 34.4 and 9.5% respectively.  Neither illness generated as much media hysteria as coronavirus.
Swine flu, also known as H1N1, happened on Obama's watch.  With over 60 million cases in the U.S., and over 12,000 deaths, where was the vitriol hurled at Obama, compared to what we are seeing directed toward Trump?
Another number ignored by the media is the number of cases of coronavirus per capita.  The U.S. rate is obviously far lower than China, South Korea, and Japan, but also lower than Italy, France, Germany, and Spain.
President Trump's decisive actions, again contrary to media reporting, are responsible for keeping U.S. numbers down due to his travel ban.
For additional perspective, heart disease kills 1,774 persons a day, cancer 1,641, accidents 466, and strokes 401 per day.  A recent tornado in Tennessee claimed 24 lives, almost twice the number of Americans who died from the coronavirus thus far.
Some other numbers offer perspective. Americans die each year from unusual causes. One hundred sixty die each year from autoerotic asphyxiation, 67 are victims of serial killers, 986 are killed by police, 75 from lawnmowers, 31 struck by lightning, and one American dies each year being trampled on Black Friday.
I haven't heard any media angst over lawnmowers or auto-erotica.  Medical errors are also far more dangerous than any viral epidemic.  From 250,000 to 400,000 Americans die each year from medical errors, the third most common cause of death in the U.S.  What would happen if Bernie Sanders got his wish and government were in charge of all of health care?
Numbers are inconvenient to the media — particularly the math-challenged like MSNBC's Brian Williams and NY Times editor Mara Gay discussing Bloomberg's campaign spending, being off by a factor of a million.  How can we trust these people reporting on coronavirus numbers?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  If you watch the evening news or read the daily newspaper, you will be inundated with fear.  Take the constant barrage of coronavirus codswallop with a grain of salt, and keep things in perspective.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D. is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. 

C-VIRUS BY THE NUMBERS #1

STATISTICS PLAY A VITAL PART IN DETERMINING HOW DANGEROUS AND HOW VIRULENT COVID-19 ACTUALLY IS.

THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO POSTS LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS TO DATE.

Email

March 9, 2020

Coronavirus Codswallop -- By the Numbers

By Brian C. Joondeph

"Codswallop" is one of those interesting words that might have been used by Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia in a dissenting opinion, or by conservative intellectual William F. Buckley in describing some liberal policy.
It's a British expression that refers to words or ideas that are foolish or untrue — in other words, nonsense.
While codswallop is a good description of the entire Democrat agenda, today I will restrict its use to the hysteria surrounding the coronavirus outbreak, media fear-mongering, and resulting public panic.
Big media are all about ratings, view, and clicks, hence their axiom, "If it bleeds, it leads."  A viral outbreak is the perfect story, on par with a missing Malaysian airliner or a celebrity football player named OJ on trial for murder.
The added bonus is that any negative news can be laid at the feet of a president loathed by the media, who just so happens to be running for re-election.  The media are in full campaign mode, trying desperately to drag the carcass of one of their corpselike candidates across the presidential finish line.
Stoking fear over quarantines and supply chain disruptions has sent the stock market on a downward roller coaster ride.  One of President Trump's major achievements is the roaring economy.  Taking the stock market down 25% or more may help the Democrats.  But by the numbers, the economy is still roaring, bolstered by the February jobs report of 273,000 added jobs, more than expected, and record-low 3.5% unemployment.
Despite the hair-on-fire reporting of coronavirus news, let's look at some actual numbers, rather than the codswallop from CNN or MSNBC.  Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Dashboard are illustrative.
At the time of this writing, there are 107,352 cases worldwide, 3,646 deaths, and 60,558 recoveries.  Fifteen of those deaths occurred in the U.S.  The odds of recovering are far higher than the odds of dying.
Cases in mainland China have peaked, with few added cases over the past week.  Cases elsewhere are on the rise, following the same pattern as China in early February.  Recoveries are rising at an even faster rate.
Granted that China may be better equipped to institute mandatory quarantines and travel restrictions under their command and control government, the pattern is similar to the disease course for other viral epidemics.
Anthony Fauci, M.D., of the National Institutes of Health and a member of the Trump administration's task force, gave some perspective in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial:

The median age of the patients was 59 years, with higher morbidity and mortality among the elderly and among those with coexisting conditions (similar to the situation with influenza).
The overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.

In other words, the coronavirus may be a nastier version of the seasonal flu, potentially fatal for the elderly and infirm.  How many Americans die from the flu each day?  Let's ask the CDC.
Influenza and pneumonia caused 55,672 deaths in the U.S. in 2017, or 153 persons per day.  As a reminder, only 15 have died from the coronavirus to date, the number dying in any four-hour period from the flu.
Over the past decade, influenza has affected between 9.3 and 45 million persons each year, depending on the flu severity.  Hospitalizations for the flu have ranged from 140,000 to 800,000 persons per year, and deaths varied between 12,000 and 61,000 each year.
These numbers, in America only, far eclipse the number of coronavirus fatalities worldwide, about 3,600 thus far.  This could and will likely change, but are the numbers worthy of the hair-on-fire reaction from cable news anchors and Democrat politicians?
Remember the coronavirus mortality rate of 3.4% pushed by the World Health Organization, the global Deep State's health mouthpiece?  President Trump said that number was too high and was excoriated by the liberal media, eagerly willing to trade a bunch of dead Americans for a Trump defeat in November.
It turns out the president was correct.  Health and Human Services assistant secretary Admiral Brett Giroir declared, "The best estimates now of the overall mortality rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.1% and 1%."
For comparison, the fatality rate for the seasonal flu is 0.1%.  The coronavirus fatality rate is likely similar to the 0.1–1% figure based on confirmed cases.  How many individuals have a normal cold, when in reality they have the coronavirus, and recover after a week?  That would mean that far more are infected but are unreported, as their infection is a nonevent, making the fatality rate lower than reported.
Look also at past viral illnesses, far more lethal than the coronavirus.  The fatality rate for MERS and SARS was 34.4 and 9.5% respectively.  Neither illness generated as much media hysteria as coronavirus.
Swine flu, also known as H1N1, happened on Obama's watch.  With over 60 million cases in the U.S., and over 12,000 deaths, where was the vitriol hurled at Obama, compared to what we are seeing directed toward Trump?
Another number ignored by the media is the number of cases of coronavirus per capita.  The U.S. rate is obviously far lower than China, South Korea, and Japan, but also lower than Italy, France, Germany, and Spain.
President Trump's decisive actions, again contrary to media reporting, are responsible for keeping U.S. numbers down due to his travel ban.
For additional perspective, heart disease kills 1,774 persons a day, cancer 1,641, accidents 466, and strokes 401 per day.  A recent tornado in Tennessee claimed 24 lives, almost twice the number of Americans who died from the coronavirus thus far.
Some other numbers offer perspective. Americans die each year from unusual causes. One hundred sixty die each year from autoerotic asphyxiation, 67 are victims of serial killers, 986 are killed by police, 75 from lawnmowers, 31 struck by lightning, and one American dies each year being trampled on Black Friday.
I haven't heard any media angst over lawnmowers or auto-erotica.  Medical errors are also far more dangerous than any viral epidemic.  From 250,000 to 400,000 Americans die each year from medical errors, the third most common cause of death in the U.S.  What would happen if Bernie Sanders got his wish and government were in charge of all of health care?
Numbers are inconvenient to the media — particularly the math-challenged like MSNBC's Brian Williams and NY Times editor Mara Gay discussing Bloomberg's campaign spending, being off by a factor of a million.  How can we trust these people reporting on coronavirus numbers?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  If you watch the evening news or read the daily newspaper, you will be inundated with fear.  Take the constant barrage of coronavirus codswallop with a grain of salt, and keep things in perspective.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D. is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. 

CLIMATE CONUNDRUM

What Is Earth’s Temperature, Now or Then?

Date: March 10, 2020Author: Nwo Report 0 Comments

Source: Jonathon Moseley

Is Planet Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same?  I often challenge advocates for climate alarmism: what is the temperature of the planet today?  Or we can use any specific day in recent years for which data are available. We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.
Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet.  Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town.  One single temperature reading for the entire globe.  To put it that way immediately sounds strange.
But if we don’t have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all?  We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only.  The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.
Some of us have forgotten basic statistics. Some avoided it in school.  But most of us are vaguely familiar with the random sampling process used in public opinion surveys.  We see opinion polls in the news all the time.  If we want to know how the USA’s estimated 153 million registered voters are going to vote on Election Day, but we don’t want to actually ask all 153 million of them, we have to follow (not violate) strict statistical methodologies for taking samples that are smaller than the entire “universe” or total population.
So if we ask 1,000 people — the same 1,000 people every year — whom they are planning to vote for, the results will be meaningless hogwash.  To be statistically valid, the sample must be random.  Each time.  Not a random sample one time that is repeated year after year.  Each sample subset must be truly, honestly random.  No games.  No phony adjustments.  Every time.  (It might be interesting to follow a subset over time to investigate why people decide whom to vote for.  But that cannot be used to predict the entire population.)
We also know that when people actually vote, the survey predictions are almost always wrong.  For one thing, when we survey people, we are not measuring how they are going to vote.  We are sampling what they are telling us, which is not the same thing.
The Earth is 196.9 million square miles of surface area.  It is a sphere 24,901 miles in circumference.  The vast majority of the Earth is ocean, and in particular vast, mostly untraveled waters like the Pacific and Southern Atlantic and the Arctic Sea.  The Earth is just unimaginably, stupendously big.  Most of planet Earth never sees any human presence, much less a weather station.
Another fatal flaw in climate alarmism is the failure to understand that air moves.  Air is made of gases, which by definition are not fixed in place or shape, but flow freely.  Alarmists try to evoke the image of carbon dioxide as like a blanket.  But carbon dioxide is not nailed in place.  It is free to move.  When warmed, all gases move upward towards outer space.  Convection transports heat from the surface up to the thin air, where jet airplanes cruise.  Heat is radiated from there out into space.
Air masses travel horizontally across the Earth.  Remember the polar vortex?  Extremely cold air sitting over the Arctic Circle is sometimes dislodged by air currents and moved south into Canada or even the northern United States.  The weather gets extremely cold.
But the Earth did not change.  Very cold air simply moved from one place to another.  The Earth is still the same temperature.  The Arctic got warmer, while North America got colder.  The air moved.  But overall, the Earth did not change.
Probably all of us have experienced, as this author has watched, the temperature drop 10 to 20 degrees within hours as a strong cold front moves in.  Even in the Bahamas, I have watched the temperature drop from the 90s to the 70s in only three or four hours.  For some reason, cold fronts when arriving are typically more violent and abrupt than a return to warmer weather.
Because the air is in constant motion, even a truly random sample of Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area would have to be taken on the same day at the same time of day.  Note that even in one location, the swing from daytime temperatures to overnight temperatures can be a 20- to 40-degree swing on the same day.
So why can’t we just measure certain cities and average their changes?  Because we are measuring weather, not climate.  Unless we measure the entire Earth we are just measuring air masses moving around, changing temperatures.
We are told scientists have adjusted for these concerns (in some mysterious magic way).  But actual rocket scientists accidentally crashed a lander into the planet Mars due to a mathematics mistake.  So forgive us if we would just like to look over their math.
The reader can find attempts to measure the Earth’s one single temperature.  For example, Carbon Brief’s “Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?” offers mental gymnastics.  The hand is quicker than the eye.  One with a science education, not indoctrinated, will blow a gasket at the house of cards.
To measure the Earth’s surface area of 196.9 million square miles, there are about 10,000 weather stations on the planet, plus about 2,000 ships, airplanes, and ocean buoys.  Remember: Those stations were designed to measure local weather, not the planet.
The alarmists explain: “The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period.”  But there is no normal.  Local anomalies are driven by weather patterns, such as El Niño and the Polar Vortex.  Many weather stations are at airports for good reason.  But aviation has changed over time from occasional propeller planes to jet airplanes every few minutes.  The expansion of cities causes the heat island effect to artificially raise temperatures at airports no longer out in the countryside.
So “[d]aily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month.  These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.”  This is nonsense.  Then: “After working out the annual temperature anomalies for each land or ocean station, the next job for scientists is to divide the earth up into grid boxes.”
NASA, they say, divides the world up into boxes of 2 degrees longitude by 2 degrees latitude.  That is a gigantic area — over 19,000 square miles — with enormous temperature variations within that box.  The other measurement schemes are 5 degrees by 5 degrees or over 119,000 square miles each.  There is vastly different weather occurring within each 119,000-square-mile box.  Again, there are only 12,000 weather stations, including part-time ones on mobile craft for the entire planet, unevenly focused too much on the “First World.”
From the time the thermometer was invented with a scientifically valid scale comparable from one thermometer to another around 1850, other than use as a novelty or hobbyist’s toy, and meticulous records started (every day, the same time of day), measurements were concentrated in Northwestern Europe and the Northeastern United States.  Gradually, decade by decade, driven largely by the rise of air strips in World War I, the locations, geographic diversity, quantity, and quality of weather stations changed over time.  So even the temperature records we have are not comparable across decades.
In short, you can claim to be able to measure the world’s temperature.  But if you want to really do it — good luck.

https://nworeport.me/2020/03/10/what-is-earths-temperature-now-or-then/

CLIMATE CONUNDRUM

What Is Earth’s Temperature, Now or Then?

Date: March 10, 2020Author: Nwo Report 0 Comments

Source: Jonathon Moseley

Is Planet Earth warming, cooling, or staying the same?  I often challenge advocates for climate alarmism: what is the temperature of the planet today?  Or we can use any specific day in recent years for which data are available. We cannot know the temperature of the planet thousands or millions of years ago if we cannot even measure it today.
Yes, the question is one single temperature of the entire planet.  Not the temperature in Nome, Alaska or Dallas, Texas, or Sydney, Australia or in your home town.  One single temperature reading for the entire globe.  To put it that way immediately sounds strange.
But if we don’t have a single temperature reading for the entire planet for today, how can we say if the planet is getting warmer or cooler or not changing at all?  We cannot talk about the temperature in, say, Geneva or London or New York City only.  The question is whether the entire planet is getting warmer, not isolated cities.
Some of us have forgotten basic statistics. Some avoided it in school.  But most of us are vaguely familiar with the random sampling process used in public opinion surveys.  We see opinion polls in the news all the time.  If we want to know how the USA’s estimated 153 million registered voters are going to vote on Election Day, but we don’t want to actually ask all 153 million of them, we have to follow (not violate) strict statistical methodologies for taking samples that are smaller than the entire “universe” or total population.
So if we ask 1,000 people — the same 1,000 people every year — whom they are planning to vote for, the results will be meaningless hogwash.  To be statistically valid, the sample must be random.  Each time.  Not a random sample one time that is repeated year after year.  Each sample subset must be truly, honestly random.  No games.  No phony adjustments.  Every time.  (It might be interesting to follow a subset over time to investigate why people decide whom to vote for.  But that cannot be used to predict the entire population.)
We also know that when people actually vote, the survey predictions are almost always wrong.  For one thing, when we survey people, we are not measuring how they are going to vote.  We are sampling what they are telling us, which is not the same thing.
The Earth is 196.9 million square miles of surface area.  It is a sphere 24,901 miles in circumference.  The vast majority of the Earth is ocean, and in particular vast, mostly untraveled waters like the Pacific and Southern Atlantic and the Arctic Sea.  The Earth is just unimaginably, stupendously big.  Most of planet Earth never sees any human presence, much less a weather station.
Another fatal flaw in climate alarmism is the failure to understand that air moves.  Air is made of gases, which by definition are not fixed in place or shape, but flow freely.  Alarmists try to evoke the image of carbon dioxide as like a blanket.  But carbon dioxide is not nailed in place.  It is free to move.  When warmed, all gases move upward towards outer space.  Convection transports heat from the surface up to the thin air, where jet airplanes cruise.  Heat is radiated from there out into space.
Air masses travel horizontally across the Earth.  Remember the polar vortex?  Extremely cold air sitting over the Arctic Circle is sometimes dislodged by air currents and moved south into Canada or even the northern United States.  The weather gets extremely cold.
But the Earth did not change.  Very cold air simply moved from one place to another.  The Earth is still the same temperature.  The Arctic got warmer, while North America got colder.  The air moved.  But overall, the Earth did not change.
Probably all of us have experienced, as this author has watched, the temperature drop 10 to 20 degrees within hours as a strong cold front moves in.  Even in the Bahamas, I have watched the temperature drop from the 90s to the 70s in only three or four hours.  For some reason, cold fronts when arriving are typically more violent and abrupt than a return to warmer weather.
Because the air is in constant motion, even a truly random sample of Earth’s 196.9 million square miles of surface area would have to be taken on the same day at the same time of day.  Note that even in one location, the swing from daytime temperatures to overnight temperatures can be a 20- to 40-degree swing on the same day.
So why can’t we just measure certain cities and average their changes?  Because we are measuring weather, not climate.  Unless we measure the entire Earth we are just measuring air masses moving around, changing temperatures.
We are told scientists have adjusted for these concerns (in some mysterious magic way).  But actual rocket scientists accidentally crashed a lander into the planet Mars due to a mathematics mistake.  So forgive us if we would just like to look over their math.
The reader can find attempts to measure the Earth’s one single temperature.  For example, Carbon Brief’s “Explainer: How do scientists measure global temperature?” offers mental gymnastics.  The hand is quicker than the eye.  One with a science education, not indoctrinated, will blow a gasket at the house of cards.
To measure the Earth’s surface area of 196.9 million square miles, there are about 10,000 weather stations on the planet, plus about 2,000 ships, airplanes, and ocean buoys.  Remember: Those stations were designed to measure local weather, not the planet.
The alarmists explain: “The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period.”  But there is no normal.  Local anomalies are driven by weather patterns, such as El Niño and the Polar Vortex.  Many weather stations are at airports for good reason.  But aviation has changed over time from occasional propeller planes to jet airplanes every few minutes.  The expansion of cities causes the heat island effect to artificially raise temperatures at airports no longer out in the countryside.
So “[d]aily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month.  These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year.”  This is nonsense.  Then: “After working out the annual temperature anomalies for each land or ocean station, the next job for scientists is to divide the earth up into grid boxes.”
NASA, they say, divides the world up into boxes of 2 degrees longitude by 2 degrees latitude.  That is a gigantic area — over 19,000 square miles — with enormous temperature variations within that box.  The other measurement schemes are 5 degrees by 5 degrees or over 119,000 square miles each.  There is vastly different weather occurring within each 119,000-square-mile box.  Again, there are only 12,000 weather stations, including part-time ones on mobile craft for the entire planet, unevenly focused too much on the “First World.”
From the time the thermometer was invented with a scientifically valid scale comparable from one thermometer to another around 1850, other than use as a novelty or hobbyist’s toy, and meticulous records started (every day, the same time of day), measurements were concentrated in Northwestern Europe and the Northeastern United States.  Gradually, decade by decade, driven largely by the rise of air strips in World War I, the locations, geographic diversity, quantity, and quality of weather stations changed over time.  So even the temperature records we have are not comparable across decades.
In short, you can claim to be able to measure the world’s temperature.  But if you want to really do it — good luck.

https://nworeport.me/2020/03/10/what-is-earths-temperature-now-or-then/

GREEKS SPRAY INVADERS WITH PIGS' ***** AND MORE THAT MSM WON'T SHOW

GREEKS SPRAY INVADERS WITH PIGS' ***** AND MORE THAT MSM WON'T SHOW

NEED WE PANIC?

Verified by Psychology Today

Samuel Paul Veissière Ph.D.

Culture, Mind, and Brain

The Coronavirus Is Much Worse Than You Think

How COVID-19 is infecting our minds, not our lungs.

Posted Feb 27, 2020

Ask yourself the following: Would you feel confident taking an over-the-counter medication if you were 98 percent sure it would work safely? Would you dare to gamble all your savings in a one-off scheme in which you had a 98 percent chance of losing it all?
The coronavirus is a similar no-brainer. As a generic member of the human species, you have about the same odds of dying of the coronavirus as winning in the gambling scenario. These are overall rates, meaning that unless you are already in very poor health, are very old, or very young, the odds for you are much lower. Or next to nil.
Why then are so many countries implementing quarantine measures, shutting down their borders, schools, and soccer games for something that is less likely to happen to anyone than drowning in a single year, or even being hit by lightning in one’s lifetime? Why is the stock-market crashing, and why are school and workplace mass emails, news headlines, social media feeds, and face-to-face conversations dominated by stories about what is essentially a new strand of mild to moderate flu?
Our minds like to jump to threatening headlines with big, alarming numbers. As this post was first aired, a total of 80,000 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in 40 countries. To put things in perspective again, this is a mere 0.0001% of the world population. In comparison, seasonal outbreaks of influenza make 3 to 5 million people sick enough to seek treatment worldwide (up to 0.06% of the population) while many more cases go undetected. The seasonal flu results in 290,000 to 650,000 deaths each year — up to 0.008% of the population.
To grasp the full — and very real — power of the coronavirus, we need to enter the rabbit hole of evolved human psychology.
The coronavirus is quite simply, and almost exclusively, a moral panic. This is so in the most literal sense. Human bodies, minds, societies, systems of meaning, norms, and morality have co-evolved with pathogens. Determining who drove whom in this dark scenario is currently unclear.
To understand this strange dynamic, consider people’s blatant inability to make statistically correct inferences about actual risk in the current epidemic of catastrophizing about COVID-19. The human propensity to ignore basic probability, and our mind’s fondness for attending to ‘salient’ information is well-documented. The negativity bias is one of the most potent of such pre-programmed mental heuristics: Any cue that contains information about potential dangers and threats will jump to mind easily, will be easier to remember, and easier to pass on. In the lingo of cultural epidemiologists, we describe danger cues as possessing "high learnability, memorability, and teachability" — or high feed-forward potential in epidemics of ideas. There is a clear evolutionary advantage to this trait: We are better off over-interpreting rather than under-interpreting danger. In most cases, these instant associations work well. Cues that signal the presence of pathogens tend to elicit automatic disgust responses, so as to help us avoid dangers.  Over time, we’ve also evolved the ability to react instantly to a range of visual and auditory cues that convey a high likelihood of pathogen presence. This is why most of us are grossed out by the presence of mice, rats, or bugs, or by the sound of sniffling.
But this mental heuristic is known to glitch in other ways. Racism and xenophobia, for example, also recruit pathogen-detection brain mechanisms. The language and metaphors we routinely use to justify moral outrage and our fear of the other also employ pathogen metaphors. We speak of undesirables as “vermin”; we are “grossed out” by offensive ideas; we worry about our girls being “soiled," and our young people's minds being “infected” by “sick” individuals and groups. Studies have shown that germaphobes and people who score higher in disgust sensitivity tend to be more ideologically and politically rigid.
The plot thickens — or, more to the point, tightens — again. A growing consensus in the social sciences plots the historical rise of societies with 'tighter' social norms and more conservative cultures to the presence of pathogens in the environment. Western cultures tend to be 'looser' than non-Western ones for this reason — northern latitudes do not sustain as many pathogens as tropical zones — and they have become even looser since the advent of improved sanitation and antibiotics. Countries with higher historical pathogen prevalence are also associated with less gender equality and more rigid gender roles than those with cleaner environments.
But it gets weirder again. Deadly viruses like smallpox, the plague, measles, and influenza evolved in conditions of high population density between humans, animals, their detritus, and their excretions. More to the point, zoonotic (animal-borne, contagious to humans) diseases co-evolved under new selective pressures exerted on humans, plants, and animals as they domesticated one another in the Neolithic period, starting 12,000 years ago. By ‘domestication,' I refer to the evolutionary strategy of species who selectively breed and reshape the life histories of other species for their own needs. Over a million years ago, following the domestication of fire, for example, our hominin ancestors were able to burn vast expanses of forest and savannah to reshape animal migration patterns for their hunting needs. Neolithic humans, to be sure, appear to have started the trend of selectively breeding plant species (millet, wheat, rice) and animal species (dogs, camels, pigs, goats, sheep, cows) for their nutritional, survival, and energy-conservation needs. As human and animal population density rose in the Neolithic, multiple waves of uninvited commensals like rats, mice, sparrows, pigeons — and, following those, fleas, lice, ticks, ants, flies, bees, and other insects joined in. Parasites, bacteria and viruses soon followed.  Anthropologist James C. Scott refers to these radical niche transformations as “Late-Neolithic Multi-Species Relocation Settlement Camps."
Recall that evolution is a numbers game: At a population level, species seek to maximize their numbers by exploiting — and bending to their will — the vulnerabilities of other organisms in the niche. From Scott’s perspective, commenting on the backbreaking toil of humans who became tied to their ploughs in the course of a few centuries, it is unclear who domesticated whom in the Neolithic. Judging by the exponential spread and 'success’ of such plant species as wheat, corn, rice, or marijuana, and the radical modes of restructuring of human activities and human bodies following their adoption as mono-crops, one might suggest, as Michael Pollan once did, that these plants colonized us. The abandonment of varied sources of proteins and fibre, as well as the flexible modes of livelihoods and environmental knowledge that sustained hunter-gatherer lifestyles gave rise, in record evolutionary time, to deep physiological changes and damages to the human body. By many accounts, the human species has yet to recover from the shock of the agricultural transition, which, for a while, led to lower statures, tooth decay, and lower bone density from malnutrition; a spike in auto-immune diseases; and increased mortality from new pathogens. On another cynical account — judging this time by the bending of human psychology, norms, social roles, moral codes, and patterns of migration and conflict — the new pathogens clearly won the numbers game.
By this account, COVID-19 is turning out to be a remarkably intelligent evolutionary adversary. By exploiting vulnerabilities in human psychology selectively bred by its pathogen ancestors, it has already shut down many of our schools, crashed our stock market, increased social conflict and xenophobia, reshuffled our migration patterns, and is working to contain us in homogenous spaces where it can keep spreading. We should pause to remark that COVID-19 is extraordinarily successful epidemiologically, precisely because it is not extremely lethal. With its mortality rate of 90%, for example, Ebola is a rather stupid virus: It kills its host — and itself — too quickly to spread far enough to reshape other species’ life-ways to cater to its needs.
The bad news for you is that, if you live in a densely populated area, you are very likely to contract the coronavirus — if not this year, next year, or the year after as it undergoes its seasonal global migration pattern with its zoonotic cousins.
The good news is that you will almost certainly not die from it, and it may not even register that you are slightly more sluggish than usual for a week or two. Much more relevant to the terrible threat caused by our Pathogen Overlords, you can prepare to fight the yearly Corona invasions to come by resisting your own neuroticism, your own prejudice, and your own irrationality. As far as numbers games are concerned, our Pathogen Overlords are much more noble, and much more worthy of our hatred than our fellow human pseudo-enemies in political, religious, and culture wars.
Humans of the world, unite: You have nothing to lose but your bad health. 

NEED WE PANIC?

Verified by Psychology Today

Samuel Paul Veissière Ph.D.

Culture, Mind, and Brain

The Coronavirus Is Much Worse Than You Think

How COVID-19 is infecting our minds, not our lungs.

Posted Feb 27, 2020

Ask yourself the following: Would you feel confident taking an over-the-counter medication if you were 98 percent sure it would work safely? Would you dare to gamble all your savings in a one-off scheme in which you had a 98 percent chance of losing it all?
The coronavirus is a similar no-brainer. As a generic member of the human species, you have about the same odds of dying of the coronavirus as winning in the gambling scenario. These are overall rates, meaning that unless you are already in very poor health, are very old, or very young, the odds for you are much lower. Or next to nil.
Why then are so many countries implementing quarantine measures, shutting down their borders, schools, and soccer games for something that is less likely to happen to anyone than drowning in a single year, or even being hit by lightning in one’s lifetime? Why is the stock-market crashing, and why are school and workplace mass emails, news headlines, social media feeds, and face-to-face conversations dominated by stories about what is essentially a new strand of mild to moderate flu?
Our minds like to jump to threatening headlines with big, alarming numbers. As this post was first aired, a total of 80,000 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in 40 countries. To put things in perspective again, this is a mere 0.0001% of the world population. In comparison, seasonal outbreaks of influenza make 3 to 5 million people sick enough to seek treatment worldwide (up to 0.06% of the population) while many more cases go undetected. The seasonal flu results in 290,000 to 650,000 deaths each year — up to 0.008% of the population.
To grasp the full — and very real — power of the coronavirus, we need to enter the rabbit hole of evolved human psychology.
The coronavirus is quite simply, and almost exclusively, a moral panic. This is so in the most literal sense. Human bodies, minds, societies, systems of meaning, norms, and morality have co-evolved with pathogens. Determining who drove whom in this dark scenario is currently unclear.
To understand this strange dynamic, consider people’s blatant inability to make statistically correct inferences about actual risk in the current epidemic of catastrophizing about COVID-19. The human propensity to ignore basic probability, and our mind’s fondness for attending to ‘salient’ information is well-documented. The negativity bias is one of the most potent of such pre-programmed mental heuristics: Any cue that contains information about potential dangers and threats will jump to mind easily, will be easier to remember, and easier to pass on. In the lingo of cultural epidemiologists, we describe danger cues as possessing "high learnability, memorability, and teachability" — or high feed-forward potential in epidemics of ideas. There is a clear evolutionary advantage to this trait: We are better off over-interpreting rather than under-interpreting danger. In most cases, these instant associations work well. Cues that signal the presence of pathogens tend to elicit automatic disgust responses, so as to help us avoid dangers.  Over time, we’ve also evolved the ability to react instantly to a range of visual and auditory cues that convey a high likelihood of pathogen presence. This is why most of us are grossed out by the presence of mice, rats, or bugs, or by the sound of sniffling.
But this mental heuristic is known to glitch in other ways. Racism and xenophobia, for example, also recruit pathogen-detection brain mechanisms. The language and metaphors we routinely use to justify moral outrage and our fear of the other also employ pathogen metaphors. We speak of undesirables as “vermin”; we are “grossed out” by offensive ideas; we worry about our girls being “soiled," and our young people's minds being “infected” by “sick” individuals and groups. Studies have shown that germaphobes and people who score higher in disgust sensitivity tend to be more ideologically and politically rigid.
The plot thickens — or, more to the point, tightens — again. A growing consensus in the social sciences plots the historical rise of societies with 'tighter' social norms and more conservative cultures to the presence of pathogens in the environment. Western cultures tend to be 'looser' than non-Western ones for this reason — northern latitudes do not sustain as many pathogens as tropical zones — and they have become even looser since the advent of improved sanitation and antibiotics. Countries with higher historical pathogen prevalence are also associated with less gender equality and more rigid gender roles than those with cleaner environments.
But it gets weirder again. Deadly viruses like smallpox, the plague, measles, and influenza evolved in conditions of high population density between humans, animals, their detritus, and their excretions. More to the point, zoonotic (animal-borne, contagious to humans) diseases co-evolved under new selective pressures exerted on humans, plants, and animals as they domesticated one another in the Neolithic period, starting 12,000 years ago. By ‘domestication,' I refer to the evolutionary strategy of species who selectively breed and reshape the life histories of other species for their own needs. Over a million years ago, following the domestication of fire, for example, our hominin ancestors were able to burn vast expanses of forest and savannah to reshape animal migration patterns for their hunting needs. Neolithic humans, to be sure, appear to have started the trend of selectively breeding plant species (millet, wheat, rice) and animal species (dogs, camels, pigs, goats, sheep, cows) for their nutritional, survival, and energy-conservation needs. As human and animal population density rose in the Neolithic, multiple waves of uninvited commensals like rats, mice, sparrows, pigeons — and, following those, fleas, lice, ticks, ants, flies, bees, and other insects joined in. Parasites, bacteria and viruses soon followed.  Anthropologist James C. Scott refers to these radical niche transformations as “Late-Neolithic Multi-Species Relocation Settlement Camps."
Recall that evolution is a numbers game: At a population level, species seek to maximize their numbers by exploiting — and bending to their will — the vulnerabilities of other organisms in the niche. From Scott’s perspective, commenting on the backbreaking toil of humans who became tied to their ploughs in the course of a few centuries, it is unclear who domesticated whom in the Neolithic. Judging by the exponential spread and 'success’ of such plant species as wheat, corn, rice, or marijuana, and the radical modes of restructuring of human activities and human bodies following their adoption as mono-crops, one might suggest, as Michael Pollan once did, that these plants colonized us. The abandonment of varied sources of proteins and fibre, as well as the flexible modes of livelihoods and environmental knowledge that sustained hunter-gatherer lifestyles gave rise, in record evolutionary time, to deep physiological changes and damages to the human body. By many accounts, the human species has yet to recover from the shock of the agricultural transition, which, for a while, led to lower statures, tooth decay, and lower bone density from malnutrition; a spike in auto-immune diseases; and increased mortality from new pathogens. On another cynical account — judging this time by the bending of human psychology, norms, social roles, moral codes, and patterns of migration and conflict — the new pathogens clearly won the numbers game.
By this account, COVID-19 is turning out to be a remarkably intelligent evolutionary adversary. By exploiting vulnerabilities in human psychology selectively bred by its pathogen ancestors, it has already shut down many of our schools, crashed our stock market, increased social conflict and xenophobia, reshuffled our migration patterns, and is working to contain us in homogenous spaces where it can keep spreading. We should pause to remark that COVID-19 is extraordinarily successful epidemiologically, precisely because it is not extremely lethal. With its mortality rate of 90%, for example, Ebola is a rather stupid virus: It kills its host — and itself — too quickly to spread far enough to reshape other species’ life-ways to cater to its needs.
The bad news for you is that, if you live in a densely populated area, you are very likely to contract the coronavirus — if not this year, next year, or the year after as it undergoes its seasonal global migration pattern with its zoonotic cousins.
The good news is that you will almost certainly not die from it, and it may not even register that you are slightly more sluggish than usual for a week or two. Much more relevant to the terrible threat caused by our Pathogen Overlords, you can prepare to fight the yearly Corona invasions to come by resisting your own neuroticism, your own prejudice, and your own irrationality. As far as numbers games are concerned, our Pathogen Overlords are much more noble, and much more worthy of our hatred than our fellow human pseudo-enemies in political, religious, and culture wars.
Humans of the world, unite: You have nothing to lose but your bad health. 

BYE BYE LONDON

BYE BYE LONDON

A BAD INFLUENCE

AS YOU READ THIS, THINK OF Lt. Col. VINDMAN, GROOMED FOR A HIGH POSITION FROM AN EARLY AGE, ALONG WITH HIS TWIN BROTHER, TO FOSTER CERTAIN INTERESTS.

 .

 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/who-is-alexander-vindman.html

RELATED ......

"In a research and reading room, I spoke in whispers with a librarian named Casey Greene, who said that 10,000 Jews arrived between 1907 and 1914 as part of the Galveston Movement. They settled in every state in the West, and it was the only substantial example of organized Jewish immigration to the US."
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/The-Galveston-movement-411990 

Time To Do What’s Right

The Crazz FilesMarch 8, 2020

READ MORE AT NATIONAL VANGUARD 
Dr. William Pierce shows us that it’s possible to stand up to Jewish power.
by Dr. William L. Pierce
WELL, WELL, WELL! Finally even someone in the Clinton gang said something about it: there are far too many Jews in Clinton’s government. An unnamed bureaucrat in the State Department, trying to implement the Clinton government’s policy of maximizing “diversity” in the bureaucracy, looked around and noticed that nearly all of the people in the key policy positions in the State Department are Jews, and he wrote a memorandum to other bureaucrats saying, “Hey, we have too many Jews. We need to hold off on appointing any more Jews to vacant positions around here and try to get some other ethnicities involved.” He pointed out in particular that everyone in the section of the State Department dealing with the Middle East is a Jew.
Of course, the number of Jews in the State Department has become much more noticeable since Clinton’s Jewish secretary of state Madeleine Albright was appointed and immediately surrounded herself with a swarm of Jewish assistants and advisors. But it is considered impolite to notice this, and when someone leaked the memo about there being too many Jews to a local newspaper, the Washington Times, things hit the fan. There were screams of outrage from all the usual quarters. Jewish Congressman Benjamin Gilman, a Republican from New York and chairman of the House Internal Affairs Committee, complained angrily about the memo to Mr. Clinton, wailing that any attempt to stop the State Department from becoming entirely Jewish is “religious discrimination.” And in Mr. Clinton Congressman Gilman found a sympathetic listener. Mr. Clinton has appointed more Jews to government positions than any other President in history — by far. In particular he has hardly appointed anyone except Jews to the positions of control over America’s foreign policy. His entire national security team is Jewish: the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chief of the National Security Council and his deputy — they’re all Jews appointed by Clinton. And so the State Department bureaucrat who wrote that memo is now in very hot water. Predictions are that he will be crucified — which, come to think of it, is a punishment which has a historical precedent for a similar offense against the Jewish establishment.
The bureaucrat’s problem is that he just didn’t get it: He just never understood that what the government’s policy of “diversity” really means is, get rid of the straight, White males. One heterosexual White male in any department is one too many. But you do not ask whether or not there may be too many homosexuals or too many Blacks or too many Hispanic lesbians or too many Vietnamese immigrants in a particular government agency — and especially you never, never, never comment about there being too many Jews. There can’t be too many Jews in positions of power and influence. “Diversity” doesn’t apply to Jews.

The government bureaucracy isn’t the only place where it is Politically Incorrect to notice the huge overabundance of Jews; organized crime is another area. When the Los Angeles police announced that they had found out who had killed the son of Black television actor Bill Cosby, they told the world that their suspect is a “Russian” — and might be a hit man for a “Russian” organized crime gang, suggesting that Cosby may have been involved in some sort of drug deal which went bad. When this announcement hit the news last week, there was much talk on television about how the “Russians” are taking over organized crime in the United States, about how the most vicious and sophisticated organized crime gangs are made up of “Russian” immigrants, and so on. The word “Jew” was never mentioned in connection with any of this, and so the average television viewer would never realize that these crime gangs actually have no Russians in them at all. They consist entirely of Jews from Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union. They are Jewish organized crime gangs, but that fact is never mentioned by the controlled news media.
The reason America is now plagued by the Jewish organized crime gangs is that our government in Washington has for years treated Jews differently from all other persons in Eastern Europe seeking entry to the United States. If you’re a real Russian who wants to come to the United States to get away from the disastrous economic conditions in post-Communist Russia, our government won’t let you in. But if you’re a Jew who wants to come over here from Russia because your tribe already has picked that country’s bones clean, you are welcomed with open arms and given every advantage. You are classified as a “refugee from persecution.” Hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews have poured into the United States during the past 20 years, and many of them were hardened criminals. They ran the rackets in Russia, and now that they’ve bled Russia dry they’ve come over here to suck our blood. It is these Jewish so-called “refugees” who have set up the vicious organized crime gangs on the east and west coasts — especially in the New York and Los Angeles areas — and are doing far more damage than the Italian mafia ever did. But you would never know that from watching television. And don’t expect the Clinton government to change its policy toward those poor, persecuted Soviet Jews still pouring into America.
After the Los Angeles police had investigated their suspect, Mikhail Markhasev, for a day or two, they announced that they believed he was not acting on behalf of any organized crime group when he shot Cosby. He is only 18 years old and came to the United States with his family eight years ago as a “Russian refugee,” they said. Still no mention that he is a Jew, but the description of him as a “Russian refugee” is a dead giveaway, because, as I just mentioned, for all practical purposes it is only Jews who are given that status. And it turned out that this particular 18-year-old Jew has an extensive criminal record and is known as a hardened and vicious thug, and may have been undergoing initiation into a gang when he killed Cosby.
The two news items I’ve mentioned — the fuss about a bureaucrat’s memo on the growing Jewishness of our State Department and the murder of Bill Cosby’s son by a Jewish criminal from Russia — may sound like they’re completely unrelated, but they’re not. The common link they have is the Jewish control of America’s news and entertainment media.
The State Department is supposed to look out for America’s interests in our dealings with other countries. It’s supposed to exercise diplomacy on our behalf in a way which will solve our problems with other countries without our having to go to war. One of the key problem spots in the world, of course, is the Middle East. Our State Department spends more time dealing with problems in the Middle East than anywhere else in the world. The root of all the problems in the Middle East is the seizure of Arab land by Jews in a series of wars over the past 50 years. And how does our State Department look out for our interests in the Middle East? It staffs the Middle Eastern section entirely with Jews. That’s like trying to solve problems in the henhouse by putting a fox in charge.
No major politician in Washington, no sophisticated bureaucrat in Washington, believes that the State Department is looking out for American interests in the Middle East. Everyone understands that the real job of the State Department is to look out for Jewish interests. Everyone understands that except the general public. The general public hasn’t been let in on the secret, because the news media, which are supposed to keep the public informed, are covering for the Jews. Can you imagine the screams of outrage you would hear if any President or Secretary of State tried to staff the Middle Eastern section of the State Department with Arabs? The media would be screaming that the State Department was biased against Israel, that it wasn’t really looking out for America’s interests, that it was siding with the Arabs. They would make sure that the public heard about it — over and over and over. But when the State Department becomes essentially an arm of the government of Israel, the public doesn’t hear a peep.
It may be foreign affairs that our Jew-heavy State Department deals with, but foreign affairs have domestic consequences. They can cost American lives. They take money out of the pockets of American taxpayers. The American public may not have found out yet that our State Department doesn’t represent American interests, but the rest of the world has found out. That’s why the Marine barracks in Lebanon was blown up, killing 237 of our Marines in 1983; that’s why the World Trade Center in New York City was bombed a decade later; that’s why our military people were bombed in Saudi Arabia last year; that’s why there will be other terror bombings in the future which will take American lives. And it’s why the Jews in our State Department very well may lead our country into another war in the Middle East in the near future. They will do it because they know that the Jews who control the media will cover for them.
Or take the Cosby killing. The Soviet Jewish thug who did it was in this country only because our government automatically classifies any Jew in eastern Europe who wants to come to the United States as a “refugee from persecution.” It’s a racket, and it wouldn’t exist if our news media would expose it. But they don’t. So the organized Jewish groups put pressure on the politicians, the politicians give them the special laws and handouts for Israel and other things they demand, and the news media just keep quiet about it, so Joe and Jill Sixpack never have a clue as to what’s happening.
What we need are honest, responsible, and patriotic news media, which actually keep the public informed about what’s going on. As long as the Jews have their death grip on the media, the public will remain ignorant, and every sort of corrupt and destructive activity will be able to proceed without the public’s knowledge. Joe and Jill Sixpack will learn only what the Jews want them to learn.
But the public consists of more than Joe and Jill Sixpack. When I say Joe and Jill Sixpack, I’m talking about the great mass of Americans who never have an idea in their heads that they didn’t get from television, who turn first to the sports section when they open their newspapers, and who never analyze anything, who never think carefully about anything. Unfortunately, Joe and Jill vote — in fact, they make up the great mass of voters — and so it suffices for the Jews’ purpose to keep Joe and Jill in the dark. But there are people who do keep up with what’s going on in the world. There are lots of people who concern themselves with what’s really happening. They read the small print in their newspapers, and they read between the lines. They know how to add two and two and draw the correct conclusion. They have noted what our State Department has been doing during the past 50 years, and they have noted many of the names and faces of the people involved. And so when they spot a small news article reporting Congressman Gilman’s outrage over some minor personnel official in the State Department being concerned that there are too many Jews in the department, these people are not surprised or confused. They understand. And they have read and remembered the fine print about the immigration of Soviet Jews into this country, and so they understand what the newspapers really mean when they report about “Russian” gangs of organized criminals.
They understand, so why do they not speak out? Why do they remain silent while the Jews continue to deceive and plunder their fellow citizens? These people who understand more often than not are successful people, people who wield a certain amount of power, a certain amount of influence. They could make a difference. After all, the Jews constitute only 2-1/2 per cent of the population. The people who understand what the Jews are up to make up at least that large a portion of the population. So why do they remain silent?
I have spoken with many of these people, and I have asked them that very question. Some of them have answered me in a very reasonable way. They have told me that while they understand that many Jews are engaged in destructive activities, especially in connection with their control of the news and entertainment media and their influence on governmental policy and the political process, they don’t know everything that’s going on. They don’t want to speak out in ignorance. They don’t want to make fools of themselves and perhaps do an injustice to some Jews by making blanket statements when they don’t yet have all of the facts.
Well, let’s say we have a mutinous faction in a ship’s crew which is drilling holes in the bottom of the boat, the ship has taken on a lot of water and already is listing at 45 degrees, but the ship’s officers refuse to take any action because they don’t yet have all of the facts. What would you say about those ship’s officers? Are they just trying to be careful and fair? Or do they have some character flaw: perhaps a deficiency in courage or a defective sense of responsibility?
I understand as well as anyone that there is a cost involved in doing what is right instead of just going with the flow. I understand that the Jews always try to punish those who speak out against them. I understand there is some risk involved in being Politically Incorrect when one is living in a degenerate society under a corrupt government. But look at the cost of remaining silent: the loss of one’s self-respect, the loss of one’s sense of righteousness — unless one has a very flexible conscience. Is it worth it?
You know, someone once said, “What does it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and yet lose his soul?” And I say, what degree of security, what amount of material wealth, is great enough to sacrifice one’s honor for it? What can the Jews threaten a man with that is more terrible than living with the knowledge that he has shirked his responsibility, that he has failed to do what he knows he should do and could do?
I am attacked continually by the Jews in their newspapers and their television. They shriek that I am a “hater,” and they try to frighten ordinary people into staying away from me. And they do more. They sic the government on me, and they try to bankrupt me with harassing lawsuits. I used to have a tax exemption because all of my work is educational, and I’m certainly not in it for the profit. But the B’nai B’rith, one of the powerful Jewish organizations to whose tune the politicians dance, complained to the Internal Revenue Service, and they obediently took away my tax exemption. Morris Dees and his Southern Poverty Law Center tried to bankrupt me with a spurious law suit in an effort to silence me. Morris Dees boasted to the newspapers when he sued me that he would “shut Pierce down.” And these things certainly are a nuisance. But the compensation is that I sleep well at night. I live and work constantly with the joy of knowing that I am doing the right thing, that I am doing what I should be doing, to the best of my ability. And despite all of the hatred and all of the attacks the Jews direct against me, the number of my friends and supporters continues to grow.
It is possible to stand up to the Jews. It is possible to do what you know is right without being destroyed. They have much power, but it is power which they are obliged to keep concealed. They understand that they are playing a very risky and tricky game. They know that there are more of us than of them. They know that they can only continue to suck the blood of our people if they can do it without provoking us sufficiently that we wake up and take action against them. And now they see more and more of us waking up. That must be a very unnerving experience for them.
You who are reading this are at least partially awake. You are a cut above Joe and Jill Sixpack. So I say to you: think about what you are doing with your life. Think about the responsibility you have to your children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. Think about the responsibility you have to all of those who came before you and whose sacrifices made your life possible. And think about your responsibility to yourself, your responsibility to be the best person, the most righteous person, that you can be. Think about all of these things, and then let me hear from you.
Source: Free Speech magazine, May 1997