Thursday, April 30, 2015

CIA insider Jim Rickards’ predictions for society in 2024

Editor’s Note from Jim Rickards: ‘The following article describes a fictional dystopia in the spirit of Brave New World or 1984. It is not a firm forecast or prediction in the usual analytic sense. Instead, it’s intended to provide warning, and encourage readers to be alert to dangerous trends in society, some of which are already in place. Thank you.’
As I awoke this morning, Sunday, Oct. 13, 2024, from restless dreams, I found the insect-sized sensor implanted in my arm was already awake. We call it a “bug.” U.S. citizens have been required to have them since 2022 to access government health care.
The bug knew from its biometric monitoring of my brain wave frequencies and rapid eye movement that I would awake momentarily. It was already at work launching systems, including the coffee maker. I could smell the coffee brewing in the kitchen. The information screens on the inside of my panopticon goggles were already flashing before my eyes.
Jim Rickards CIA
Economist and establishment insider Jim Rickards.
Images of world leaders were on the screen. They were issuing proclamations about the fine health of their economies and the advent of world peace. Citizens, they explained, needed to work in accordance with the New World Order Growth Plan to maximize wealth for all. I knew this was propaganda, but I couldn’t ignore it. Removing your panopticon goggles is viewed with suspicion by the neighborhood watch committees. Your “bug” controls all the channels.
I’m mostly interested in economics and finance, as I have been for decades. I’ve told the central authorities that I’m an economic historian, so they’ve given me access to archives and information denied to most citizens in the name of national economic security.
My work now is only historical, because markets were abolished after the Panic of 2018. That was not the original intent of the authorities. They meant to close markets “temporarily” to stop the panic, but once the markets were shut, there was no way to reopen them without the panic starting again.
Today, trust in markets is completely gone. All investors want is their money back. Authorities started printing money after the Panic of 2008, but that solution stopped working by 2018. Probably because so much had been printed in 2017 under QE7. When the panic hit, money was viewed as worthless. So markets were simply closed.
G20 finance ministers central bank governors
Between 2018–20, the Group of 20 major powers, the G-20, abolished all currencies except for the dollar, the euro and the ruasia. The dollar became the local currency in North and South America. Europe, Africa and Australia used the euro. The ruasia was the only new currency — a combination of the old Russian ruble, Chinese yuan and Japanese yen — and was adopted as the local currency in Asia.
There is also new world money called special drawing rights, or SDRs for short. They’re used only for settlements between countries, however. Everyday citizens use the dollar, euro or ruasia for daily transactions. The SDR is also used to set energy prices and as a benchmark for the value of the three local currencies. The World Central Bank, formerly the IMF, administers the SDR system under the direction of the G-20. As a result of the fixed exchange rates, there’s no currency trading.
All of the gold in the world was confiscated in 2020 and placed in a nuclear bomb-proof vault dug into the Swiss Alps. The mountain vault had been vacated by the Swiss army and made available to the World Central Bank for this purpose. All G-20 nations contributed their national gold to the vault. All private gold was forcibly confiscated and added to the Swiss vault as well. All gold mining had been nationalized and suspended on environmental grounds.
The purpose of the Swiss vault was not to have gold backing for currencies, but rather to remove gold from the financial system entirely so it could never be used as money again. Thus, gold trading ceased because its production, use and possession were banned. By these means, the G-20 and the World Central Bank control the only forms of money.
Gold bars stacked
Some lucky ones had purchased gold in 2014 and sold it when it reached $40,000 per ounce in 2019. By then, inflation was out of control and the power elites knew that all confidence in paper currencies had been lost. The only way to re-establish control of money was to confiscate gold. But those who sold near the top were able to purchase land or art, which the authorities did not confiscate.
Those who never owned gold in the first place saw their savings, retirement incomes, pensions and insurance policies turn to dust once the hyperinflation began. Now it seems so obvious. The only way to preserve wealth through the Panic of 2018 was to have gold, land and fine art. But investors not only needed to have the foresight to buy it… they also had to be nimble enough to sell the gold before the confiscation in 2020, and then buy more land and art and hang onto it. For that reason, many lost everything.
Land and personal property were not confiscated, because much of it was needed for living arrangements and agriculture. Personal property was too difficult to confiscate and of little use to the state. Fine art was lumped in with cheap art and mundane personal property and ignored.
Stock and bond trading were halted when the markets closed. During the panic selling after the crash of 2018, stocks were wiped out. Too, the value of all bonds were wiped out in the hyperinflation of 2019. Governments closed stock and bond markets, nationalized all corporations and declared a moratorium on all debts. World leaders initially explained it as an effort to “buy time” to come up with a plan to unfreeze the markets, but over time, they realized that trust and confidence had been permanently destroyed, and there was no point in trying.
Police State Police
Wiped-out savers broke out in money riots soon after but were quickly suppressed by militarized police who used drones, night vision technology, body armor and electronic surveillance. Highway tollbooth digital scanners were used to spot and interdict those who tried to flee by car. By 2017, the U.S. government required sensors on all cars. It was all too easy for officials to turn off the engines of those who were government targets, spot their locations and arrest them on the side of the road.
In compensation for citizens’ wealth destroyed by inflation and confiscation, governments distributed digital Social Units called Social Shares and Social Donations. These were based on a person’s previous wealth. Americans below a certain level of wealth got Social Shares that entitled them to a guaranteed income.
Those above a certain level of wealth got Social Donation units that required them to give their wealth to the state. Over time, the result was a redistribution of wealth so that everyone had about the same net worth and the same standard of living. The French economist Thomas Piketty was the principal consultant to the G-20 and World Central Bank on this project.
To facilitate the gradual freezing of markets, confiscation of wealth and creation of Social Units, world governments coordinated the elimination of cash in 2016. The “cashless society” was sold to citizens as a convenience. No more dirty, grubby coins and bills to carry around!
Instead, you could pay with smart cards and mobile phones and could transfer funds online. Only when the elimination of cash was complete did citizens realize that digital money meant total control by government. This made it easy to adopt former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers’ idea of negative interest rates. Governments simply deducted amounts from its citizens’ bank accounts every month. Without cash, there was no way to prevent the digital deductions.
Cashless society
The government could also monitor all of your transactions and digitally freeze your account if you disagreed with their tax or monetary policy. In fact, a new category of hate crime for “thoughts against monetary policy” was enacted by executive order. The penalty was digital elimination of the wealth of those guilty of dissent.
The entire process unfolded in small stages so that investors and citizens barely noticed before it was too late. Gold had been the best way to preserve wealth from 2014–18, but in the end, it was confiscated because the power elites knew it could not be allowed. First, they eliminated cash in 2016. Then they eliminated diverse currencies and stocks in 2018. Finally came the hyperinflation of 2019, which wiped out most wealth, followed by gold confiscation and the digital socialism of 2020.
By last year, 2023, free markets, private property and entrepreneurship were things of the past. All that remains of wealth is land, fine art and some (illegal) gold. The only other valuable assets are individual talents, provided you can deploy them outside the system of state-approved jobs.
Please share this.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

A View From Space with Gary Bell the Spaceman, April 25, 2015

Please share this.

Utopian Socialism -- Social Workers kidnaping children in Norway

Norwegian social workers Barnevernet are doing what they do daily, kidnap children
This video shows how a less than a year old girl Anna is being kidnapped. Kidnapping is made by the Norwegian Barnevernet ( social services ) who snatches children on a regular basis from traditional families. As you can see the is no resistance possible against 3 of those bastards, 2 of which pressed the young mother against the floor. Child is being brought to a secret address unknown to the family or relatives.

As the official statistics of Norway point out, that annually over 10.000 children are being kidnapped without any investigation or a hearing before a judge, and without showing any paperwork.

This is 5-6 children every hour. In who's interest those children are being taken know only government officials. Corruption level in the field of child trade / adoption in Norway is the highest in the world. Some actually say that Norwegian mafia is involved in it.
Mothers who give birth are being called in Norway: bags who carry the nation's offspring.
Government actually set a goal to remove 100% of the children from their biological parents.

Platon's plan, that how the plan is called of destroying traditional families in Norway ( and in many other countries across Europe ). You can read about all this on many websites made by Norwegian parents.

Here is a small example of what is happening in Norway:

The same things are happening in The Netherlands, UK, Germany, Sweden, Finland.

Please share this.

Seasoned Investigative Journalist Exposes Inside Strategies to Censor News

Click HERE to watch the full interview!

Download Interview Transcript

You can choose to ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Most of us rely heavily on the media for information, not realizing that 90 percent of it is controlled by a mere six media giants.
Sharyl Attkisson, a five-time Emmy Award winning investigative journalist whose television career spans more than three decades is one of my personal heroes. She was the reporter who, in 2009, blew the lid off the swine flu media hype, showing the hysteria was completely unfounded and manufactured.
She recently left CBS to pursue other avenues of investigative journalism, and has authored a highly praised book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington, which exposes what goes on behind the scenes in the media that gives you the information you come to think of as real and true.
"I left CBS about a year ago when it seemed I had met with so many dead ends in trying to continue the original investigative reporting that I've done for so many years there," Sharyl says.
"My producer and I just kept hitting brick walls in the last two years or so in trying to get this reporting on television. We certainly weren't alone. Reporters are complaining about this across the board at many print organizations and broadcast outlets...
The watchdog reporting that the government values so much is simply not desired for a variety of reasons as much as it once was at the national level. I think also this is a problem in local news...
There was no point [in staying]. I was never in a position to turn up better stories; I have more information, more sources, more whistleblowers, and more I felt might produce terrific stories than ever before after 20 years in CBS News, and yet, utterly lacked the ability to get any of it on television.
I could've stayed and done weather stories and stories of the day but that's just not where my interest was."

What Led to the Downfall of Watchdog Reporting?

Unfortunately, the trend of diluting the depth and scope of investigative journalism can even be seen in high-quality programs like CBS' 60 Minutes, which has been a favorite show of mine since its inception over four decades ago.
As noted by Sharyl, the reasons for the decline of investigative journalism are complicated. But a big part of it is due to commercial concerns; basically, commercial and corporate influences came into play, and media outlets grew to accept commercialization as part of the news process.
"I call it soft censorship," Sharyl says. "When you know you have a sponsor and you know it's important to the corporation, are you really going to offend the sponsor by going after stories that they don't like?
But I do think it's more overt than that sometimes. The sponsors explicitly complain and argue at the corporate level that certain stories and topics shouldn't be done.
We know this is true based on one anecdote I put in the book, but there are other anecdotes and experiences that reporters have had, where they've been told that this is the case.
Additionally, there are political factors. There were managers at CBS in those last two years that inserted their ideology into the reporting of producers and reporters, who by and large were very fair. That can change the whole tone of the reporting."
One of the examples in Sharyl's book that really hit home for me was when Hillary Clinton ran against Obama for president, and while on the campaign trail told reporters she had dodged sniper fire on a trip as First Lady, 12 years prior, when she visited Bosnia.
It seems like a silly thing to lie about, but lie she did. Sharyl and other journalists had been on that trip, and they all knew no one had dodged sniper fire, least of all the First Lady. Fortunately, Sharyl had archived videos of the event to prove it.
"It couldn't be farther from the truth, the idea that we had been shot up by sniper fire," Sharyl says. "There are a couple of choices – just being untruthful for her own benefit, or was she delusional, which is a little frightening. But I think the public got past that because they accepted her as the Secretary of State."
Another point Sharyl makes very effectively in her book is that there's this collaboration within the media, such that if one agency picks up a story, they all run the same story. You can watch the nightly news on every channel, and the story will be presented in virtually the same way, sometimes more or less verbatim.
"Too often, I think they don't want to cover a major controversy unless others have already covered it, like the New York Times or the Washington Post; then it's safe.
They don't want to cover certain stories for ideological reasons. They don't want to cover certain stories against corporate partners that might harm corporate relationships."

Intimidation and Harassment of Journalists

True investigative journalists, such as Sharyl, have also become targets of intimidation and harassment. For example, at one point her computer and phone lines were hacked to find out what she was working on.
"I assume there are a handful of journalists who do that sort of critical reporting on the government, and on this administration in particular, that they wanted to watch.
They never dreamed I would luck upon the resources to have the computer examined by experts that could find the software they deposited in my computer.
This software was proprietary to a government agency, either the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...
They had my keystroke data... They could look at all my files. They used Skype audio – I didn't know this was possible – but they could turn it on invisibly, without you knowing it, to listen into conversations. They could also remove files using Skype... We were able to confirm these highly sophisticated long-term, remote intrusions."
Another interesting book for anyone interested or concerned about matters such as these is Future Crimes: Everything Is Connected, Everyone Is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It by Marc Goodman. The book discusses in great detail how this type of hacking can occur, and more importantly, what simple measures we can do to protect ourselves. It's a reality. And if they're doing it to top-notch investigative reporters, certainly everyone is a candidate.

On Astroturfing...

"Astroturf" is the effort on the part of special interests, whether corporate or political, to surreptitiously sway public opinion and make it appear as though it's a grassroots effort for or against a particular agenda, when in reality such a groundswell of public opinion might not exist. Sharyl explains:
"They turn to things like social media – Facebook and Twitter – using pseudonyms and multiple accounts to spread things around. They use their partners who blog for them, write things, and pick up on one another's work until sometimes it's been picked up in the mainstream media as if it's a fact.
It's all intended to make you feel as though if you hold a certain opinion that they don't want you to have, you're the outlier. Everybody else agrees with 'X' except you, and that may not be the truth. This is a huge business... There are actually PR firms that specialize in these sorts of tactics.
Astroturfing is now more important, I am told by lobbyists and PR firms, to many clients than the direct lobbying of Congress because it's so effective to reach out to the public. They may have someone write a letter to the editor and you don't know that person is being paid by a special interest to advance a certain opinion.
They may start as a nonprofit without saying out front that they're behind the nonprofit. The nonprofit may then look like a charity that's advancing a certain opinion, which is actually acting on behalf of the corporate interest or the special interest. Again, it's very widespread..."
Hallmark signs of astroturfing include using key language—words such as crank, crack, nutty, pseudo, conspiracy, and other language that's effective with the public to try to make you dismiss an argument they don't like. Another hallmark of an Astroturf campaign is attacking those who are questioning authority, such as reporters who are exposing the truth, whistleblowers who dare to step forward, and people asking tough questions.
It's important to be aware of these kinds of concerted efforts to distort the truth, and to understand how they're done, because these "faux concern" campaigns can have a profound influence on your perception of reality.
A perfect example of astroturfing just occurred when a GMO front group attacked Dr. Oz after he reported on the now scientifically established hazards of glyphosate, and the media swallowed and regurgitated the propaganda without any critical thought whatsoever. Slate magazine publicized the attack with the headline “Letter from Prominent Doctors Implies Columbia Should Fire Dr. Oz for Being a Quack.”
The letter accuses Dr. Oz of repeatedly showing “disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops.”
The letter was signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller and nine other “distinguished physicians.” What the media has failed to address is that Dr. Henry Miller is hardly a concerned physician. He’s actually a now well-known shill for the GMO industry.
In his capacity as its front man, he was caught misrepresenting himself during the Anti-Prop.37 campaign in 2012, pretending to be a Stanford professor opposing GMO labeling, when in fact he is not a professor at Stanford. The TV ad had to be pulled off the air because of this misrepresentation.
Aside from that, he has a long and sordid history1 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to defending Big Tobacco. Some of the other nine physicians are also less than distinguished. As noted by US Right to Know:2
“One was stripped of his medical license in New York and sent to federal prison camp for Medicaid fraud. Yet Dr. Gilbert Ross plays up his M.D. credentials in his role as acting president of the American Council for Science and Health (ACSH). Ross was joined on the Columbia letter by ACSH board member Dr. Jack Fisher.
So what is ACSH? Though some reporters treat it as an independent science source, the group has been heavily funded by oil, chemical, and tobacco companies, and has a long history of making inaccurate statements about science that directly benefit those industries – for example claiming that secondhand smoke isn’t linked to heart attacks, fracking doesn’t pollute water...
These facts are relevant in stories about scientific integrity. The scientific accuracy and motivations of the accusers matter when they are publicly challenging the scientific accuracy and motivations of somebody they are trying to get fired. We urge reporters and editors to take a closer look at the sources selling them story ideas, and to act as better watchdogs for the public interest”.

Dr. Henry Miller and American Council for Science and Health Are False Fronts for the GMO Industry

Indeed, Henry Miller and ACSH are false fronts for the GMO industry, plain and simple. They are part of a PR hack strategy of astroturfing, and the mainstream media are too inept to look behind the curtain to see what’s really there. The fact of the matter is that this attack on Dr. Oz is orchestrated not by concerned physicians or scientists but rather by industry shills whose job it is to attack anyone who embraces a more natural approach to health and/or raise damning questions that might hurt the industry’s bottom-line.

Why Conventional Media So Rarely Tells You the Truth About Health

One industry that wields a great deal of power within the media today is the pharmaceutical industry. It's rare to sit through an evening of television without viewing several drug ads. They also advertise heavily in print and online media. The advertising dollars they spend not only generates sales, it also gives them the power to influence what's being reported in the news. Here's just one example:
"There's a story in my book about former executive producer of mine who got a phone call from the sales division, which was very inappropriate. He said the sales person from CBS was kind of screaming at him because we'd been doing a lot of stories looking at side effects and problems with the very popular and billion-dollar-selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins.
The advertisers didn't like that. Therefore, someone from the CBS corporate apparently didn't like that, and called down and said something like, 'If you keep doing these stories, it's going to be really, really bad for CBS...'
I think that happens more often than we know explicitly. But this time, it was followed by what I see as all of the media backing down on pharmaceutical-related stories. We were doing very aggressive coverage of problems within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – not just me, but all the networks and a lot of print publications – about vaccines side effects, and about other medical issues. That all has virtually stopped. You can almost point to a time period when it seems someone made a phone call and said, 'That's it fellas. There are advertisers.'
And you won't see these stories now even when there's a multi-billion-dollar criminal settlement against drug companies for mismarketing drugs that are commonly used. That's a huge story that should be leading the news in my opinion. But most people probably never heard of it because those are things that offend the sensibilities of advertisers, who now control to some degree the editorial content of networks, publications, and print publications that are advertising.
And, as you know, they have several lobbyists for every member of Congress on Capitol Hill so they can make sure certain hearings don't happen. As recently as last year, they were able to stop a planned vaccine-related hearing. The control is almost total in my view. That's just one example of a corporate influence."

What Are Some 'Big' Stories Not Being Reported Right Now?

According to Sharyl, if journalists would simply cover the news with facts and fairness, topics like vaccine side effects would receive far greater coverage. The reason it doesn't is because that topic has been deemed "untouchable." Other emerging health issues that you don't hear about in the news include the emergence of enterovirus EV-D68. It's a polio-like virus, but it's not polio.
Thousands of people were stricken with it last year, and the virus appears to be linked to cases of paralysis. At least a dozen children also died from it, yet you didn't hear about this on the news because it was not, unlike the measles vaccine, something the government was interested in promoting.
"Too often reporters wait for the government to tell them what's a story and what's not a story. They won't do the digging on their own, which I think is a very bad trend. But I tried to find out about this [enterovirus] and asked the CDC some questions, to which they replied they didn't gather certain data. I searched the web and found that the CDC had published a paper with the data that I've asked for! So it was completely false what they told me..."
Sharyl's book exposes many of the inside strategies that go on to suppress this type of information. Since leaving CBS News and finishing her book, she's been writing freelance, publishing a number of stories she would have had a hard time telling before, such as the story of how a government experiment on premature babies misled parents with an unethical consent form to enroll their premature babies in the program.
This study was conducted at prestigious research institutions by the government across the country. After some of the babies died, the study was stopped. Even the government's own ethics body concluded that the consent form was unethical because it didn't actually inform the parents that their babies were being entered into a study.
They were just told that this treatment would be good for their baby. In reality, the babies were randomly placed into high-oxygen or low-oxygen groups—not what was best for them individually. The parents were unaware that their child was being given treatment based on the flip of a coin. The parents also didn't know that their child was placed in an oxygen machine that had been disabled to give false readings.
"That story was published in Daily Signal,3 which is a heritage foundation news organization that started last year. They've done some excellent reporting and haven't tampered with my stories," Sharyl says.

What the Media Isn't Telling You about 'ObamaCare'

Another story Sharyl believes has been underreported is that of "The US government is still hiding public documents that have been under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for a long time," she claims. And the media simply reports whatever the government says, even though the government has been caught providing false information, including providing false statements under oath to Congress. There are still details of this health care program that we don't know anything about, and why is that?
"For millions of Americans, I think, this law is turning out to be disastrous and too expensive," she says. "There's now a new class of uninsured people who had insurance, but who've been bumped off or have gone off because they can't afford it now. The insurance isn't covering what people need.
Certainly, there are people who have benefitted, people who couldn't get insurance before. There's no doubt about that. That's going to be reported on, but what's not reported is that many people are suffering severe consequences..."
In her book she also exposes the debacle of how was developed, so if you're interested in learning more about that, please pick up a copy of Stonewalled. Sharyl has donated proceeds from Stonewalled to the University of Florida to put on a Freedom of Information forum for students and professionals, in which they brainstormed to come up with ideas for making the government more responsive to public information request; how to fix the freedom of information process, "which is entirely pointless and useless now," as Sharyl says.
So, when you buy her book, part of the proceeds are going towards ongoing efforts to help influence a more open and honest government, which is clearly something that needs work.
Please share this.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

“Hate Speech”: YouTube Deletes Viral Anti-Feminist Video

A viral anti-feminist video which showed men defending themselves against violent assaults by women was controversially deleted after YouTube deemed the video to be a form of “hate speech”.
Uploaded by a YouTube user called RedPillPhilosophy, the video received over 1.1 million views and over 9,000 likes on YouTube alone before it was taken down.
The clip showed numerous instances of women attacking men and men defending themselves in an effort to make the point that feminists don’t truly believe in “gender equality”.
“All the video ever did was document people defending themselves against bullies, aggressors (and) violent people,” commented the uploader, noting that the idea we live in a “patriarchy” is discredited if men defending themselves against violence was considered to be “hate speech”.
“Apparently we live in a society where a woman who is bullying somebody should get a free pass,” he added, noting that a video showing women defending themselves against men would have been celebrated.
The incident also illustrates how YouTube’s policy on deleting videos is driven by mob rule. So long as enough individuals can be encouraged to flag a video, it is automatically censored no matter the nature of its content.
While the original video was undoubtedly controversial and offensive to many, the fact that it was completely removed once again highlights how censorious feminists hold sway over the policing of thought and content on the Internet. Videos of women attacking men remain on YouTube and are not considered to be “hate speech.”
This is by no means the first time that radical feminists have organized to have content which challenges their views censored. Janet Bloomfield, the founder of the #WomenAgainstFeminism hashtag, had her Twitter account erased after she disagreed with feminist Jessica Valenti. The Guardian writer claimed that Christmas was oppressive to women because of the chores they were expected to do during the holiday season.
Watch the original video that was deleted here and decide for yourself whether it represents “hate speech”.

Please share this.

Share this viral cartoon: The Liberal Media's 'Wheel of Intolerance' exposes outrageous bigotry of the left

The liberal media, which once demanded "tolerance" for gays and members of the LGBT community, has now become militantly intolerant of all the other beliefs it doesn't like.

Christian-bashing now seems to be daily sport for the media. It's also politically acceptable to bash white men, Southerners, soldiers, veterans, homeschoolers and parents who avoid vaccines.

Why is no one calling out the leftist media's own bigotry and intolerance being expressed daily through its hate speech and militant attacks on innocent Americans who hold non-leftist beliefs?

As someone who truly practices universal tolerance of other people's religions, lifestyles and personal beliefs, I've decided I will not remain silent while the leftist media claims to occupy the moral high ground on "tolerance" but is actually practicing the very same sort of bigotry and intolerance it once opposed!

As I've stated before, if your "tolerance" isn't universally applied, it isn't tolerance at all. If intolerance is wrong when directed at gays, African-Americans, women or Latinos, why is that same intolerance somehow socially acceptable when it is directed against Christians, veterans, white people and pro-lifers?

Share this cartoon. Spread the word. Take a stand against leftist media bigotry, intimidation and intolerance. It's time to expose the gross contradictions of the leftist media which, it turns out, doesn't believe in "tolerance" at all. It actually believes in brutalizing and punishing those who don't sign on to its own agenda.

Please share this.