Once Again...Upon Deaf Ears

...and so the Hypernormalised System Creaks on...

No Democrats, Sorry to Say, this Last-minute Fiasco has Always been the Plan

👀 Chamath Palihapitiya & David Sacks on What the Biden Debate Revealed

"The mask has come off. The whole shell game has been revealed. It's obvious that Biden was always a puppet for these interests who were hiding behind him and now it's all being exposed."@chamath… pic.twitter.com/c7EUGhFyvW

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) June 29, 2024

The Table has been Set, the Reflexive Environment is now here.  The Democratic Candidate is The Current Thing.  What remains is to unwrap the alchemical ingredient... that brings home Operational Success.  Psycho-Politics 101.

  ...all that Remains is for Michelle Obama to Step Forward, and for Barack to Peek Out from Behind the Stage.  Let the 4th term commence!  The Hunter behind the collapsing stalking horse may now be revealed.

Blacks Will Never Be Equal...

 ...so long as Democrats Continue to Assuage their White Guilt-Pride (Vain attempts to achieve "Moral Superiority" through a "secular confession  of sins" achieved through virtue signaled acknowledgement of historical guilt)  with Patronizing Formal Gestures like DEI and Affirmative Action that Distort,  Undermine, and Otherwise Preclude the Possibility of Actual Racial Performance Reaching a Measurable Achievement level either at, near, or even close to approaching 'Equality'. Such an 'Experiment' will likely never be attempted, so comfortably guilt-pride ridden are the white Democrats.

Instead of perversely enjoying our guilt (and thereby patronizing the true victims), we need active solidarity: guilt and victimhood immobilize us. Only all of us together, treating ourselves and each other as responsible adults, can beat racism and sexism.

A Collective "A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-c-k!!!!!!!" is Heard from Inside the DC Beltway...

Jonathan Turley, "The Art of Being Eternally Shocked: How the Press and Pundits Are Again Mystified by the Obvious"

No one would think of the Beltway as being a place of the naive innocents of our society. Washington is the only ecosystem composed entirely of apex predators. Yet, this week everyone seems to be eternally shocked by what has been obvious for years.

The press and pundits are coming off an embarrassing couple of weeks where the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated in federal court as real. This occurred in the trial of the president’s son almost on the anniversary of a debunked letter of intelligence officials claiming that the laptop appeared to be Russian disinformation. Biden then repeated the claim in the last presidential debates to avoid answering questions over the massive influence peddling scheme of this family revealed by the laptop.

After the story was suppressed before the 2020 election, it took years for the media to admit that, oops, the laptop is surprisingly real.

For years, the press and pundits piled on experts who suggested that Covid 19 escaped from a Chinese lab. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. accepts the lab theory as possible and federal agencies now believe it is the most likely explanation.

The response: surprise and spin.

This week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Department has unlawfully charged hundreds of people with obstruction of an official proceeding after the January 6th riot. For years, objections to the excessive treatment of these cases were dismissed as the view of the radical right. Now, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to toss out these convictions.

Surprise.

Whether it was the false story about agents whipping migrants in Texas or the photo op claim in Lafayette Park, false stories were disproven only to have a collective shrug from those who spread them.

For years, the press and pundits have repeated like gospel that Trump had called neo-Nazis “fine people.” At the time, most of us noted that Trump condemned the racists and neo-Nazis and made the statement about fine people on both sides of the controversy over the removal of historic statues.

Six years later, Snopes finally decided to do a fact check and, surprise, found that Trump never praised neo-Nazis as fine people. The only person not surprised was Biden who repeated the false story on Friday as true.

Heading into the presidential debate, the White House and the media attacked Fox News and other outlets for “cheap fake” videos designed to make the President look confused and feeble. For months, politicians and pundits have insisted that Biden is sharp and commanding in conversations even after Special Counsel Robert Hur cited his decline as a reason for not charging him criminally for the unlawful retention and mishandling of classified material.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough stated “start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And F— you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever. Not a close second. And I have known him for years…If it weren’t the truth I wouldn’t say it.”

After the debate, there was total surprise, if not shock, on CNN and MSNBC. Suddenly, it is not a cheap fake but reality.

Just seven days before the debate, the New York Times was running cheap fake articles on how Biden was being wrongly portrayed. The day after the debate, it was calling for him to withdraw from the race after expressing shock at his appearance.

On CNN, Biden biographer and CNN contributor Evan Osnos admitted that many Americans were likely “shocked” by Biden’s appearance: “I don’t think there’s any other way to put it. This was clearly a person who was diminished from where he was on the debate stage four years ago.”

Pro-Biden columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that he was floored by what he saw and that “heartbreaking” appearance of Biden made him “weep.”

Washington is now full of surprises. It is a city of people who display that practiced faux shock that you adopt when you learn in advance that your friends are throwing a surprise party. The key is to look stunned and then mingle.

It is a city of Claude Rains: The laptop is real, the President is really old, and Washington is really really phony.

The only thing that would be more surprising is if pundits and the press started being a lot less shocked and more honest. 

Farage: Britain's "Trump"? Or Handy Political-Class Implement?

Oliver JJ Lane,"The Legacy Media’s Aggressive Love-Hate Relationship With Nigel Farage is on Full Display this Election"

The British establishment media has pivoted to full assault mode against Brexit’s Nigel Farage this past week, scrabbling to prevent him from achieving escape velocity at the UK elections on Thursday.

The central point of this piece is simple, so let’s get it done with right at the top. The legacy media in the United Kingdom love Nigel Farage because they see him as a weapon they can use to destroy the real enemy, the long-hated Conservative Party. Yes, you may hate the Tories now, and well deserved that is too. But for senior journalists in most of this country’s news media, this has been an ambition longer than many of us have been alive.

They see Mr Farage, with whom they profoundly disagree on absolutely everything, as a hot water faucet that can be turned up and down as desired to damage the legacy right.

At the beginning of this election cycle, Mr Farage faced what may have been the friendliest media environment of his life. The metaphorical faucet of allowing him media exposure was turned up high, pouring down scalding water on the heads of the Conservatives with weeks of barely critical reportage and endless –absolutely endless – polls showing his Reform UK on the up. Cynical perhaps, but remember Peter Hitchen’s view that the true purpose of polling may not be to measure opinion, but to influence it.

Mr Farage is a canny operator, almost certainly one of the most effective British politicians of modern British history. He knew what was happening, is apt at playing the media at their own game, no doubt happy to be used and reckoning he could break free of this abusive relationship by achieving escape velocity before the MSM had time to react. And now, they most certainly are reacting.

The question is whether he can break the media domination now the faucet is being aggressively, urgently shut off. Like the Democrat grassroots after this week’s debate, the British left is having an ‘oh shit’ moment as they desperately try to put Farage back in the box they’re making for him.

Make no mistake, to the British legacy media, Farage has now served his purpose. The Conservatives have been catastrophically damaged by their own incompetence in the first instance, and finished off by the media telegraphing to the voting public it’s OK to vote for an alternative in the second.

Consider Nigel Farage’s BBC appearances this campaign so far. Two weeks ago he was given totally free reign to dominate a seven-way debate. There is no question he comprehensively won that. Indeed, I’d argue this was a more impressive performance than President Trump’s this week. Mr Farage’s opponents in the ring weren’t asleep, for one thing.

Then the BBC interrogations of Mr Farage two Friday nights in a row, now, coming after the sudden day to night switch engaged everywhere from Farage as useful to serve the agenda to Farage a dangerous extremist that broadcasters have a responsibility to destroy.

There was astonishingly little talk of policy last night on the BBC’s Question Time special. And little wonder, it was 30 minutes of Mr Farage being repeatedly told by host and studio audience alike that he is a racist and should go away. The evening started with host Fiona Bruce explaining the show format to Mr Farage and that he wouldn’t be interrupted. Some hope.

Farage and the Reform campaign has now, realistically, lost a whole week of campaign time being stuck on the defensive. It isn’t like the attacks coming now – that Farage made comments in 2014 and the unexpected snap election gave him no time to hand pick quality candidates – are new information. The broadcasters knew all this when they were in ‘use Farage’ mode three weeks ago, it simply wasn’t expedient.

It looks like Reform needs an urgent reset. The last five days of the election can’t be dancing to the BBC’s and Channel 4 News’ tune, stuck perpetually on the back foot.

Mr Farage makes much of his friendship with President Trump. So here’s the best possible time to take a leaf out of his book: when the spotlight of intense attention is turned on you, as it is now, go on the attack. Go absolutely buck wild. Prefacing every speech you give for five whole days with an apologia for a decade old prediction that war was coming for Ukraine really achieves nothing but keep a distracting and energy-consuming story alive.

This is important stuff because this election really is a stars-aligning moment. If Mr Farage can achieve escape velocity on Thursday, get a Parliamentary group big enough that he can’t be ignored, then he’s on track to build his national team and prepare for the next election in 2029. The opportunity to fundamentally change Britain’s political landscape really only comes once a century but for Farage, somehow, it has come twice.

Thanks to the vagaries of Britain’s electoral system, it is conceivable the outcome of this vote is a big city, middle class, left wing party – Labour – forming the government and being held to account by a small city, middle class, left wing party. That’s the Liberal Democrats by the way, and no fault to you for not having heard of them. Small and otherwise inconsequential as they are, their ground campaign game is good and this void-to-be-filled stars-aligned election could just as well benefit them.

The Conservative party has already surrendered any claim to be the centre-right opposition in this country. They did that themselves with cynical calculation so effective it’s hard to believe it isn’t deliberate. This country needs an effective right-wing opposition. The crown is in the gutter, Mr Farage. Please, God, pick it up.

A Public Service Message from Dr. John Campbell

Thanks Dr. Campbell, we'll all be on the lookout for further Symptoms.  :)

Crumblin', Tumblin' Walls...

The Democratic Party's Lame Kabuki Theatre Creaks On...

 Last night:

...this afternoon:

“I don’t walk as easily as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but I know what I do know. I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. I know how to do this job.”

Exactly the right message.

pic.twitter.com/zpAHRgox0p

— Angry Staffer 🌻 (@Angry_Staffer) June 28, 2024

...they Upped the Dosage!

Targeting Nigel Farage... Just How Shameless IS the UK Establishment?

Vote Reform UK!

Alistair Smout, "UK's Sunak hurt and angry over Reform volunteer's racial slur"

STOCKTON-ON-TEES, England, June 28 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he was hurt and angry that a supporter of Nigel Farage's right-wing Reform UK party had been recorded making a racial slur about him, saying it was too important for him not to speak out.

Sunak, Britain's first ethnic-minority prime minister, was responding to comments broadcast by Channel 4 News, by a man named as Andrew Parker calling Sunak a "fucking Paki" - a British racial slur for people of South Asian descent.

Sunak was born in the southern English port city of Southampton in 1980 to Hindu parents of Punjabi Indian descent. 

"My two daughters have to see and hear Reform people who campaign for Nigel Farage calling me an effing Paki. It hurts and it makes me angry, and I think he has some questions to answer," Sunak told broadcasters on Friday.

"I don't repeat those words lightly, I do so deliberately because this is too important not to call out clearly for what it is."

Parker provided a statement to Channel 4 News, in response to them saying they would broadcast the video that was taken without his knowledge, saying that no one at Reform was aware of his personal views on immigration.

"I would therefore like to apologise profusely to Nigel Farage and the Reform Party if my personal views have reflected badly on them and brought them into disrepute as this was not my intention," he said.

"I offered to help the Reform Party on their canvassing as I believe that they are the only party that offer the UK voter a practical solution to the illegal immigration problem that we have in the UK."

In the Channel 4's video, Parker says: "I've always been a Tory (Conservative) voter but what annoys me is that fucking Paki we've got in. What good is he? You tell me, you know. He's just wet. Fucking useless."

Farage said in a statement late on Thursday, when the comments were first broadcast, that he was dismayed by the language. On Friday he said on Twitter: "We now learn that he is an actor by profession.

"This whole episode does not add up."

Reuters could not immediately reach Parker for comment. Channel 4 News said in a statement that they covertly filmed Parker and did not know him before they met him as a Reform volunteer.

Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

A SERIOUS Question for the UK (and US) Establishment: 

The Gr8 (D) Bait...

Memetic Politics (Round 1)

Memetic:  relating to or constituting an element of a culture or system of behavior that is passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means.

"the book shows various memetic lines of transmission"

...after the debate was over:

On the Age of Doublespeak

On the Imminent(?) Demise of the Neo-Liberal Elite's Luxury Beliefs

Hic Iacet Homo-Davos - Requiescant in Pace

On the Failed/ Failing Woke Identity Synthesis of Left-Elite Intellectuals

On the Neo-Populist Forces of Centralized Power De-Construction and Power Re-Distribution

On the Tragedy of Julian Assange

The complete Assange Plea Deal

h/t - Woodsterman

Vaxx, Vaxx, Vaxx for the 74%

Let's the Trouncing of the Politicians Commence!

Trudeau's Canadian Poofter-Pals Arrest Tommy Robinson on Trumped-up "Immigration" Violations????

The Canadian version of Beria's "Show me the Man and I'll tell you his crimes!"

Julian Assange Forced to Attest to US Just-Is Department Mischaracterizations and Lies in Exchange for his Freedom

Lawfare Uber Alles!!!!

“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” -Tacitus

Lawfare Uber Alles!

What's the Blobjective Now, WWIII?

Jacob Heilbrunn, "How the War in Ukraine Is Reviving the Blob" (5/6/22)

Biden’s escalation against Russia underscores the revival of Washington’s hawkish foreign policy mindset.

When Joe Biden was elected president, the Washington foreign policy establishment assumed that he would usher in a return to normalcy after the tumult of the Donald J. Trump era. But it didn’t quite turn out that way. Trump had put isolationism back on the American political map, or at least a less interventionist approach to the rest of the world, and Biden initially left it intact. He vexed the liberal hawks, not to mention unrepentant neocons, by reaching out to Russia and infuriated them by exiting Afghanistan. It seemed that his true focus was building back better at home, with foreign affairs a distinct afterthought.

Then came Russian President Vladimir Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24. Almost overnight, Biden rediscovered his inner Cold Warrior and landed upon a fresh purpose for his presidency. Despite initial signs of restraint — and perhaps because of Ukraine’s surprising military success — Biden has shifted into a more pugnacious posture. The administration wants to leave Russia “weakened” from the war, in the words of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The New York Times reports U.S. intelligence is helping Ukraine target Russian generals. And Biden is seeking $33 billion more in aid for Ukraine from Congress that would deliver huge amounts of weapons and equipment and help rebuild Ukraine’s industrial base. Ukraine is already a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, but step-by-step, Biden is moving closer to a policy of trying to defeat Russia, or to put it more bluntly, to fuel regime change in Moscow.

It’s an approach that has some worried about the possibility of a nuclear confrontation. But for the Washington foreign policy establishment, or, in former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes’ more evocative term, the Blob, the battle over Ukraine has come as something of a deliverance. The Blob is composed of both Democrats and Republicans — a disparate group of elite think-tankers, lawmakers, journalists and others in official Washington — who coalesce around a hawkish foreign policy, championing the old-time gospel of American leadership on the world stage.

Russia’s aggression has allowed the Washington mandarins not simply to resuscitate their credo, but also to storm the beachheads of their own adversaries, where the realists and non-interventionists who stress the importance of prudence and caution and the perils of military adventurism have dominated the terrain for a decade or so. No longer. As Andrew J. Bacevich, who has led a one-man crusade against militarism abroad, put it in The Nation, the Washington elites are at it again: “Virtually overnight, the acolytes of American power were hailing the war in Ukraine as signaling the coming restoration of a global Pax Americana. As for Afghanistan: Fuhgettaboutit!”

Already the traditional, hawkish wing of the GOP is mobilizing to once more promote the idea of American supremacy overseas. On Monday, the National Review Institute, for example, plans to host a forum on foreign affairs at the National Press Club with the Reaganesque title “Recommitting To Peace Through Strength.” The speakers will include stalwart Republican hawks such as Sen. Tom Cotton, Rep. Mike Gallagher and Elliott Abrams. It’s intended as a counter-blast to the recent “Up From Chaos” conference at the Washington Marriott that featured J.D. Vance, Sen. Rand Paul, Michael Anton and others on the Trumpian right who are averse to foreign entanglements in Ukraine and elsewhere. Meanwhile, GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger is proposing a bill to authorize Biden to deploy troops in Ukraine to restore its “territorial integrity” should Putin use chemical or nuclear weapons.

And as during and immediately after the Cold War, the push is bipartisan. Former Obama Defense Department official Evelyn Farkas, for example, has just been appointed executive director of the Washington-based McCain Institute. Farkas has declared, “We must not only condemn Russia’s illegal occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, but we must demand a withdrawal from both countries by a certain date and organize coalition forces willing to take action to enforce it.” She added, “Americans, with our European allies, must use our military to roll back Russians — even at risk of direct combat.” Sen. Chris Coons, a close Biden ally, has stated that America should contemplate “when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to the aid in defense of Ukraine.”

Another sign that the Blob is regrouping comes in the form of the regular hour-long phone meetings on Ukraine and Russia that the Biden administration has been conducting since February with leading Washington think-tanks, including the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), and the German Marshall Fund. The briefers from the administration have included National Security Council official Eric Green and Defense Department official Laura K. Cooper.

What’s the aim of these sessions? According to one participant, it’s possible to ask pointed questions, but “the whole point is to carry water for the administration. They’re buttering up the think-tank community. They want it to defend them publicly. They send follow up emails that reinforce the cycle of affirmation.”

NSC official Amanda Mansour is responsible for email blasts to the participants that contain what is called “notable commentary” relating to Ukraine and Russia that fortifies the administration’s stances. These Washington think-tanks — in particular the Atlantic Council and CEPA — play a role in both influencing administration policy and the public perception of it. The Atlantic Council, for example, has a number of former ambassadors, including Alexander Vershbow, John Herbst and Daniel Fried, who are frequent public commentators about events in Russia and Ukraine and in contact with Biden administration officials at the NSC and State Department. In late December, the Atlantic Council issued a statement signed by establishment worthies such as former Clinton administration Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott demanding that the Biden administration bolster American forces in Europe in the face of the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Since then, it has been at the forefront of pushing Biden to move faster and harder on arming Ukraine with heavy weaponry against Russia, an approach that the administration has begun to embrace.

Herbst explained to me, “The administration still needs to do more. It’s moved faster over the past several weeks because of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley. That’s been essential.” He added, “we are policy people, and, yes, we have been in touch with the administration, leading the charge publicly on this. We also get a lot of interest from Congress on this.”

The driving force behind many of the opponents of Russian revanchism is a desire to return to the 1990s, when America stood tall and proud in the face of tyranny, before it all became discredited during the George W. Bush administration’s chimerical crusade to transform the Middle East into a bastion of democracy. Now, as Putin flounders in Ukraine, the Blob is becoming stronger than ever as it senses victory over Moscow.

Nothing symbolized the enduring sway of the Blob more vividly than the memorial service at the Washington National Cathedral last week for former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. As U.N. ambassador during President Bill Clinton’s first term, Albright was a thorn in the side of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and then-national security adviser Tony Lake, both of whom blanched at the thought of American military intervention in the Balkans to stop Slobodan Milošević's war of ethnic cleansing. In his impassioned eulogy, Biden drew an implicit parallel with the 1990s, when the democracy crusade flourished in the Balkans against Milošević, and today, when a renewed push to defend freedom is taking place in Ukraine against Putin.

“It was not lost on me that Madeleine was a big part of the reason NATO was still strong and galvanized, as it is today,” Biden said. He went on to call her a “nexus of the foreign policy community.”

Albright was a charter member of the Washington establishment — a former professor at Georgetown University, an aide to former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration, and a former wife of Joseph Albright, a scion of the Medill-Patterson newspaper dynasty. And the establishment came out in full force for her ceremony. The contrast with an earlier service at the Washington National Cathedral, in September 2018, for John McCain, an inveterate cold warrior, was instructive. McCain had expressly decreed that the sitting president, Trump, should not be invited. At the service, his daughter Meghan wept that it marked the “passing of American greatness.”

Albright’s ceremony, which was attended by numerous foreign democrats, including Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who met everyone from USAID Director Samantha Power to Secretary of State Antony Blinken during her trip, suggests a different outcome. The crusading vision for democracy abroad that Albright represented wasn’t being interred. It appeared more vigorous than ever. The new Polish ambassador to Washington, Marek Magierowski, who attended the ceremony, told me that it evinced the vitality “not only of pro-democracy thinking, but also pro-NATO and pro-collective security.”

If the 1990s have served as a touchstone for the Washington foreign policy establishment — a singular moment when, as James P. Rubin, a former Albright spokesperson, recently recalled, America was “respected, admired and feared around the world” — then the assembled 1,400 guests demonstrated that pretty much everyone in Washington foreign policy circles wanted to associate themselves with her. It was Albright, after all, who predicted in her last column for the New York Times on Feb. 23 that entering Ukraine would be a colossal blunder: “Instead of paving Russia’s path to greatness, invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled and strategically vulnerable in the face of a stronger, more united Western alliance.”

She was right. The war in Ukraine has not only revived NATO but also the broader impulses that she represented. After playing defense ever since the misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the “acolytes of American power” aren’t just winning. They’ve won.

Urgently Needed: A New PUBLIC Corporate "Green List" for Shadow-banned Trump Supporters and Conservatives

from Brainly:   

Victor H. Green's "Negro Motorist Green Book" listed hotels, restaurants, clubs, and other businesses that were friendly to black people. It was a guide created to help African Americans navigate through the widespread racial discrimination and segregation during that time. The Green Book served as a resource for safe and dignified travel for black individuals.

Welcome to America (TM), Your New Society of Control. 

Got CBDCs Yet?

Divine Justice for Biden Democrats...

Secret Service purchases Joebot kit to direct Joe away from podium and off stage properly. without a media-visible "staff intervention".

Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America (John McWhorter)

from the video above:

...So, what is it about "the elect" that makes it a religion, even though not Supernatural? I Think I know but ,but uh...

For me the religion analogy was heartfelt. I really do feel as if I have seen a religion being born, especially in the 21st century. And, of course, it depends on what you call a religion. But where your cognitive processes are expected to be left behind in terms of logic going from A to B. And you're just supposed to have a certain Faith. You're supposed to take certain tenants as given, regardless of external evidence, that, to me, is religious thought. I'm Amazed by it, because I'm an anal kind of person who probably should have been a lawyer, and when I see people...

Well you're not a lawyer by the way, I'm very glad you're not a lawyer.

...sometimes I wonder, but watching people espouse things that really don't cohere except as according to this philosophy, I find, wow, you have one part of your brain that's sequestered off from this thing called logic, and for me that is religion.

So now, calling it Supernatural, to an extent for me, with all due respect to your friend, that's labels. But I think the thing people like least about Woke Racism is that I keep calling it a religion rather than, although the problem is what else would I have used, although I wasn't being exploitative. If I say "cult", I'm being mean, and also a cult would require more self-consciousness of organization than they have. If I say "ideology" not quite, because I'm talking about "not having a sense of things based on reality", whereas people can have different senses of how you're going to organize things which they can argue for carefully, that for me is an ideology. You're going from an ideology, you hang everything from your tree. Where a religion is where, frankly, you allow yourself not to make sense at all. And so to see, for example, good smart white people saying we cannot submit black people to standardized test, they're racist. And they're going from the fact that black people, for various reasons, often are not as good at them as white and Asian people. To say we should take them away from them. To not understand how condescending that is, to not understand that what you're saying is that black people just aren't as quick on the uptake as us, as opposed to thinking how do we make black people better on the test, that's religious. It means that you've been taught "that which bothers black people must be eliminated." "That which can be called racist," by a charismatic black person, "must be eliminated because I must show that I'm not a racist. And no one's thinking this, but, regardless of whether I'm actually reasoning from A to B. I see that as an unintentional kind of racism.

Now, "defund the police". Now that's all a little bit 2020-2021 now, but the fact that anybody would have said, "defund the police because of what happened to George Floyd," in the face of regular calls from disadvantaged black neighborhoods to have more police. And that's an ancient phenomenon that goes back to the 70s, and it was certainly there in '20 and '21. You get a kind of white person who kept saying that with their fist in the air in the face of the black grandmother who lost her nephew to gunfire a week before. That's not it's not a deliberate lack of compassion, but they are subordinating the feelings, the thoroughly legitimate feelings really, opinions, of black people who live in a neighborhood to their quest to demonstrate that "they are not racist". That, really, that, talk about supernatural, in order for that to really cohere of a good person, and I think that people like that are good people, it's that you've got a religion. It's the equivalent of you thinking that when you die you're going to be, you know, living in the grace of somebody who died 2,000 years ago. It's that disconnected from anything that we can actually see and reasonably describe right now. So to me, that's a religion. I literally see it that way. I think some people think it was a marketing ploy or I just want...

No no no, I think it's very convincing yeah, um and there's a very specific analogy to Original Sin, oh well, that's the privilege...

Yeah, and that you you can't live it down. None of that I mean it's a nice thing to talk about white privilege and to understand what it is. But the idea that you can't live it down, and that therefore, because you're a privileged white person, you can't write about other people than yourself, and then if you do write about privileged white people, you're John Chever and you're a racist, or that your opinion about anything connected to race is not valid because you have the privilege, although you can't specify exactly why it's not valid. And if anybody asks you to specify it, they get smacked in the face. All of that is religion.

And yes, so much of it is resembles Christianity, including, "this isn't a safe space. I can't be here." That means that it's, you're saying that somebody's a heretic. It's the same thing that happened to Galileo. It's a different word, but the notion that "I don't feel safe" and a lot of people were saying this on Zoom, "this person can't work here, I don't feel safe." What do you mean, and what is it that you're worried is going to happen to you actually? We're not supposed to ask all of that is religious thought. That's somebody holding you know their fingers like this (sign of Cross). And so, I saw religion coming. And I wrote that, it's embarrassing, I wrote it in like 10 minutes, I was really, really angry. And I had a summer...

It's a, it's a passionate book.

God I'm getting mad now. But yeah, I wrote it because I felt that a lot of people felt the same way, that a lot of them are black. And that has very much turned out to be true.

So that point is very well taken, and the point about patronizing is seemly, welting, it's condescending, that's awful patronizing, yeah um I I found it very, very convincing.

Thank you.

And I recommend it to all sorts of people

But they're not white.

So so so so...

...you're racist, right? No, actually, that one did exactly its job, it's already becoming obsolete. It's clearly something somebody wrote on their porch in 2020. I think things are different now, than they were, in terms of peak wokeness, back then. I think people have retreated and understood racism exists, and that we must expunge it as much as possible, but stop defenestrating people.

But something needed to be written then. And if my book played any part in the questioning, and honestly, I think it did, I'm glad and um, yeah, now we we move on. That is, I'll bet it's the only book I'll ever write that will actually get translations. "Woke Racism" is now in what? It's in Portuguese, it's in German, and I think French is is coming. That'll be the only book I have that gets translated. But that makes me happy, too, because wokeness was beginning to take over the whole world, and I don't think it should. We need to go back to a legitimate, 2015 kind of liberal left thinking about race that actually helps people. So now we've got, they call them in German it's called "the chosen" is what they called it. And then in Portuguese it's just, um, "woke racism". But we, I.. I'm happy to see that book get around.

Yeah, yeah... good. Um, what else? It is interesting, isn't it, that um, being black is something which is... it behaves like a genetic dominant, even though it isn't. Um, it's a, it's a mimetic dominant, in the sense that if, if, if you have, um, almost any ancestors of, indeed, know a great, great, great grandfather who's black, then you're called black.

Mhmmm.

It's not it's not quite a a genetic dominant. It's a cultural dominant. Um, but I mean, Barack Obama could just as well call himself White.

Oh yeah...

...um, and yet um, I just... you've made the same point yourself so so...

...It makes no sense, yeah, and it is dominant in that even I, I am not the kind of person who would say that based on, you know, the cheek swab that I'm really half African, that therefore I'm not black, I was born in 1965, there's certain categories, and that's it. And I've got other things to think about. I would not say. "I'm not going to accept the category," but the fact that we now look at say, somebody who's a quarter black American, and say, "and therefore they're black." That is going to look so ridiculous in the future, and I think that future is coming ever sooner. But it recapitulates the way bigoted Southerners were thinking like 10 minutes ago, "if you got any black in you". And then you have somebody with a PhD say that you're denying your heritage. What's the Heritage? You have to specify. And if you ask the question, everybody's eyes roll, and that's religion. And so yeah, we live under that illusion. And it is quite dominant because I'm stuck in it. Although my kids are, you know, they're half me, and they're half their mother. technically they qualify as what used to be called, "mixed". But in the world they're living in, I'm frankly not sure that they are going to embrace a black American identity. I think they're going to think of themselves as just people, because they never knew the 20th century, and they're growing up affluent, in highly racially diverse places. There are already people in my life, and I'm sure people observing my life, who think that my wondering whether my daughters are black, is heretical. They're thinking, "he must not want to be black himself. He doesn't understand the racism that they're going to encounter." But the thing is, if I specify, "okay, what's the racism that they're going to encounter in this life, as opposed to, for example, racism I certainly encountered in the 70s and 80s, in this life, how often is it going to be, and how direct is it going to be? And if it's going to be something extremely rare, why do you base a whole identity on that? Why?" And of course, to put it that directly is considered socially obnoxious. But it's a real question in the 2020s, and the 2030s, are they, black women, aren't we supposed to be getting beyond race?

And there's a whole Cadre of people who don't want to get beyond it, and frankly, I think it's because the sense of alienation, and the sense of opposition to an other, can be a sense of group membership. That's the funny thing about being a human under modern, stratified conditions. You want somewhere to belong. And to be able to shake your fist at an outsider gives you a sense of warm tribalism. And I don't think that black people are exceptions to that, because no humans are. But that means that you're not supposed to ask the question as to, "isn't it time that we get Beyond race"? And of course a person will say, "but there's still racism out there." And then you ask, "well, okay, but what kind? And nevertheless, why does it mean that we can't start getting Beyond race and change our categories? Our categories are absurd."

But there are people, it's getting to the point where I'm getting old, I'm 58, Thomas Chatterton Williams in his 30s, Coleman Hughes in his 20s... these are up and coming, or up and came now black commentators. And Camille Foster, who was in his 30s, they are rejecting the category completely, especially seeing, you know, Thomas seeing his phenotypically white kids. I can't quite get there, but but they're right. So I'm kind of on the fence.

Yeah something else I going to say was, um well, what about the defenistration of historical figures like David Hume, um Lincoln, uh Jefferson, um, you say something about that?

Oh yeah, the defenistration of people in the past is a galloping absurdity. I can't even pull punches on that. To pretend not to understand, and I really do think it's pretending... I'm not saying people don't understand, to pretend not to understand that it's very hard for people to see beyond their time. And/ or to insist that you do understand that, but when it comes to black people in slavery you don't, which makes no sense. To pretend that, is a gesture. You're showing that you know racism exists, by showing that you know that it existed, and that of course there are legacies of that racism then, but to evaluate Thomas Jefferson on the basis of how he saw black people is willfully ahistorical. He was a great figure in so very many ways, and wow, big surprise, he thought black people were inferior, almost everyone did. The occasional person saw beyond it, but frankly, they rarely had a whole lot of influence in their view. It worries me in particular because, based on that way of looking at things almost anybody before about 10 minutes ago is somebody who you could barely get through dinner with now, including Martin Luther King, and homophobia, all of it. And so what it means is it allows you to assue history. You don't have to study history. And, you know big surprise, history is kind of difficult. History is a challenge. Well, if you are going to reject all of these people, you don't have to master how social history works. You don't have to learn all those old facts. You can just deal with the Charisma of thinking about people who you think are cool today. It's pernicious for education and honestly I really, I have no patience with it, whatsoever.

 
Now, there are degrees. So for example, Woodrow Wilson. Okay, he's white. He's Southern. He straddles the 19th and 20th century. Was he racist? Of course, but he was a especially racist. He wrote poisonous things about black people again and again, despite having a PhD, despite being president. I get why they took his name off of a building at Princeton. But it has to be an extreme case like that. It can't be just that you were white before last week, and that's where we're going.

It is remarkable, if you look at history, if you look at say the 19th century figure like TH Huxley, or Abraham Lincoln, who were in the Vanguard of progressive thought and at the time, and yet, read what they say. I mean, that Hideous racism by modern standards...

They were Progressive.

...and they were Progressive. And it makes you think about what people of the future, what a century in time going, look back at and um,

No one thinks of that. I mean for example, they're going to look at us and think that our sense of what white and black are, are ridiculous. But you know, feelings about maybe abortion? You know, feelings about owning animals? That may look appalling to people in the future. And the idea is, we're going to, you know, take somebody off of a building because they had a dog? That really is where we're going. Scares me. And it also, just, I think we can do better. It's a problem.

Well John, it's been such a pleasure to talk to you, and we better we better wrap up. I hope we can have another opportunity.

Richard this was fantastic occasion. I've wanted to meet you for 30 years. So this was great.

Many thanks.

What if Political Hate Speech were Outlawed?

 

The Result:

 

On the Senate Homeland Security Committee Hearing on the Origins of COVID-19

“Origins of COVID-19: An Examination of Available Evidence” - Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Opening Statement of Steven Quay, MD, PhD (18 Jun 2024)

The Deep State Trump Purge

aka - The Return of Stalin's Purges and Expansion Plans for J6 Gulags

Is Ukraine a Suicide Cult? Is America?

Alexander G. Markovsky,"Ukraine’s Suicidal Nationalism"

In a speech delivered on August 1, 1991, in Kiev, President George H.W. Bush urged Ukraine to consider risks associated with independence. He delivered a clear warning to Ukraine, stating that “…. freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”

The President’s warnings fell on deaf ears. Ukrainian leaders were not pursuing national interests. Instead, they were motivated by unfounded hostility toward Russia. The outcome proved catastrophic.

On August 24, 1991, Ukraine, driven by “suicidal nationalism,” seized the opportunity presented by the impending collapse of the Soviet Union to proclaim its independence. Once the excitement and promises of democracy and prosperity faded, the Ukrainian people, who had never experienced self-governance, were confronted with the harsh realities of governing a nation. Subsequently, despite impressive resources, Ukraine failed economically and politically.

Ukraine inherited one of the world’s largest agricultural and industrial bases from the Soviet Union. It used to be called a breadbasket of Europe. Its economy produced airplanes, ships, locomotives, turbines for hydropower plants, electrical motors and transformers, and a vast assortment of consumer goods. Donbas coal mines were a major supplier of the Soviet Union’s steel mills and power plants. Additionally, Ukraine manufactured various military hardware, such as tanks, missiles, and jet fighters. With a well-educated population, Ukraine could have become one of Europe’s economic powerhouses.

Unfortunately, Ukrainian leaders either failed to grasp or intentionally ignored that the Ukrainian economy was closely intertwined with the Soviet Union’s economy. Therefore, Russia was a natural, or rather the only, market for Ukrainian goods and services. Despite this, Ukraine abandoned Russian markets and aligned with the European Union. It was an absurd idea, as it would necessitate a significant overhaul of the Ukrainian economy to comply with European regulations and standards. Such a massive endeavor would require both time and substantial financial resources.

In the end, the EU displayed no interest in Ukrainian products. Consequently, Ukraine lost the Russian market, and the economy crumbled. Ukraine was no longer able to sustain itself, and its entire existence relied on foreign aid, ultimately resulting in Ukraine losing sovereignty and becoming a pawn of foreign interests.

In no other area did “suicidal nationalism” manifest itself as severely as in the realm of domestic policy, which eventually contributed to the ongoing conflict.

After the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, where most residents were Russians, fell under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The sentiments towards Russia in these regions, varying from acknowledging Russian as an official language to seeking complete autonomy from Ukraine, have been ingrained in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. These emotions were further solidified by the removal of Ukraine's pro-Moscow, democratically elected president Yanukovych in a coup d'état that the United States sponsored in 2014.

Kiev could accept a limited autonomy for the belligerent East, similar to the American states, which it demanded from the outset, and avoid a bloody conflict altogether. But newly elected president Petro Poroshenko ignored President Bush’s warning not to “… seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” Instead, it elected to use military force to subdue the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. It has been shelling Donbas, including the use of artillery supplied by America, destroying the cities, and killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately for years (something the Western media ignores entirely). This “suicidal nationalism” was one of the reasons behind Russia’s eventual annexation of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

In foreign affairs, “suicidal nationalism” also overrode national interests. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, ostensibly for security reasons, disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings over the past three decades about the existential threat of NATO’s eastward expansion. The push for Ukraine to become a member of NATO would not and could not ensure Ukraine’s security. Instead, the effort has put Ukraine in mortal danger for breaching the terms of the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which explicitly stipulated Ukrainian neutrality (section 6, page 148).

Ukraine’s unwavering pursuit of NATO membership, fueled by political inexperience, recklessness, and a heavy reliance on foreign aid, was an illusory goal that served no national purpose and tragically led to a preventable war. By now, it is self-evident that the pursuit of NATO membership resembles chasing a mechanical rabbit (video here). Yet Zelensky and Co. still do not realize that their tireless endeavors and sacrifices have been in vain, as NATO membership has never been an attainable reality. For obvious reasons, NATO members, unlike Ukraine, want to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.

Indeed, even Ukraine’s strongest supporters cannot escape the fact that during the thirty years after declaring independence, it has failed to produce any notable accomplishments. On the contrary, inept Ukrainian leaders have plundered most of the resources they inherited from the Soviet Union, exacerbated internal incompatibilities, and incited an unnecessary war with Russia, the ravages of which continue to erode the remaining fragments of its once-thriving heritage.

In the annals of history, it would be difficult to name another instance where a nation consistently made decisions detrimental to its own national interest, ultimately leading to self-destructive outcomes. As this dysfunctional and corrupt failed state crumbles, there is a haunting fear that Ukraine will be left a wasteland for future generations. Konrad Adenauer’s words, “History is the sum of things that could have been avoided,” ring so especially true for Ukraine.

Parody of Dervish Sanders' "I Have a Dream Speech"

Aamer Rahman's "comedy" act is a fantasy about traveling back in time to convince leaders from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America to colonize and enslave Europe. He thinks this is the only real "reverse racism."

I'm all for provocative comedy that forces… pic.twitter.com/u4XIVVUHel

— Stu (@thestustustudio) June 14, 2024

...and THAT dark and sinister place is Dervy's warped mind.

Blackwashing American InJustice: Hugo Black and the Birth of the Magical Negro

Ben Voth, "Hugo Black and Democrat Racism"

On October 20, 1921 a Methodist minister Rev. Edwin R. Stephenson was acquitted of killing Catholic priest Rev. James E. Coyle in Birmingham, Alabama. The rather sensational trial centered upon the idea that the priest committed a heinous social crime by marrying the white daughter of Stephenson to a negro man in the Catholic congregation of Coyle. The interracial marriage was argued by the defense legal team of Stephenson to be such a gross breech of racial propriety that Stephenson was justified in killing the priest. Shortly after crying on the stand, Stephenson exclaimed under Hugo Black’s cross-examination what he said to the priest prior to shooting him: “You have ruined my home! That man is a Negro.” As the lead attorney in the case, Hugo Black, specifically dimmed the lights in the courtroom and reduced the natural lighting in order to parade the Methodist minister’s son-in-law, Pedro Guzman (who was Hispanic) in front of the jury. When Guzman walked into the courtroom, he did not know that moments before his father-in-law had accused him of being a negro. A few days later, Guzman wrote a letter to a Birmingham newspaper defending himself against the accusation, saying he had received haircuts from a barber that does not cut negro hair in Birmingham. Stephenson was found not guilty of killing the priest by the jury in a case predicated upon anti-Catholic and anti-black sentiments. The KKK raised funds for the trial and paid for the legal defense of Stephenson led by Hugo Black.

The abhorrent breach of justice may be what precipitated Republican president Warren Harding’s rhetorical breach of epideictic protocol while in Birmingham a few days later to speak to the segregated audience of over 100,000 people at Woodrow Wilson Park. In a speech that was supposed to be about celebrating the 75th anniversary of Birmingham, the President set down his written remarks to exclaim: “When I suggest the possibility of economic equality between the races, I mean it precisely the same way and to the same extent that I would mean it if I spoke of equality of economic opportunity as between members of the same race... I can say to you people of the South, both white and black, that the time has passed when you are entitled to assume that the problem of races is peculiarly and particularly your problem. It is the problem of democracy everywhere, if we mean the things we say about democracy as the ideal political state. Whether you like it or not, our democracy is a lie unless you stand for that equality.” His extemporaneous remarks attacking the racist predicates of Birmingham life were immediately denounced by Democratic congressional members as a: “a blow to the white civilization of America.” Harding had himself been denounced in Ohio as being a “n-word” during numerous state and national elections. His Ohio father-in-law forbade his daughter from marrying a black man. She failed to follow his expectation. In 2015, the New York Times was pleased to report that based upon genetic testing, Harding was not in fact black.

Hugo Black formally joined the KKK in 1923. This came two years after the trial where he demonized a Puerto Rican man as being a negro, thereby justifying the murder of a priest for conducting the integrated marriage of Edwin Stephenson's daughter. This would all be a rather obscure historical matter bur for Franklin Roosevelt’s nomination of Black to the Supreme Court in 1937. FDR was also the vice-presidential candidate for the Democrats in the 1920 election where the Republican Harding was argued to be unqualified to be President since he was black. After a rather rushed confirmation by the Senate in 1937, it was discovered that Black was a member of the KKK and had in fact received a prestigious lifetime membership from the group. While vacationing in Europe after swearing in as a justice, he returned to an angry American public that asked whether he should resign his post as justice in light of his membership in such a prejudicial organization. Black refused to step down despite widespread congressional and public protest. His ascendancy and now hagiography in the Court is indicative of the absurd ideological distortions surrounding Democratic Party politics in the United States with regard to anti-black racism. Black was given a black Court messenger, a Jewish subordinate, and two Catholic subordinates to work for him at the Court. Though the Court never had a history of announcing the race and religion of employees, they produced much fanfare in revealing these diverse employees for Black. All of this seemed to be orchestrated to convince the public that Black was far beyond his KKK intellectual roots in Birmingham. Hugo Black explained to the New York Times how the public misunderstood the nature of the KKK in 1967 after being on the Supreme Court for 30 years:

“The Klan in those days was not what it became later. There were a few extremists in it, but most of the people were the cream of Birmingham’s middle-class. It was a fraternal organization, really. It wasn’t anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, or anti-Negro. In fact, it was a Jew, my closest friend, Herman Beck, who asked me to join, and said they needed good people in the Klan. He couldn’t be in it, of course, but he wanted to keep down the few extremists.”

Black’s outrageous lies and rationalizations in 1967 about the misunderstood good character of the KKK is typical of the romanticism and historiography surrounding the Democratic Party’s inceptional role in creating anti-blackness as a uniquely violent institution in the 20th century. Despite the hagiography that continues to venerate Justice Black as a great champion of civil rights, Black’s most important contributions to the Court were: 1) his authorship of the Korematsu majority opinion rationalizing the internment of Japanese Americans and 2) his championing of the anti-religious dogma of a “wall separating church and state.”

In the 1944 Korematsu case, writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Black explained that: “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect” and subject to tests of "the most rigid scrutiny,” not all such restrictions are inherently unconstitutional. “Pressing public necessity,” he wrote, "may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can.” Black was able to rationalize one of the most profoundly unjust decisions of the 20th-century Court. It fit perfectly well with the political world as envisioned by the KKK.

His second major contribution was the distortive notion of Jefferson’s wall separating church and state. His 1947 opinion in Everson explained: “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.” This doctrine was promoted by Black in more than a dozen Supreme Court decisions and remains one of the most popular misconceptions today held fiercely by secular intellectuals as a reactionary tool for screening religious life out of our public sphere. Black posited that the State was continually threatened by an overwhelming violent force of Christian sectarianism and only his interpretation of the separation doctrine could save the ever-vulnerable federal government. This fierce attachment and development over roughly a dozen cases would lead the Supreme Court to try to curtail the metaphor after his death in 1971 by acknowledging that it was inherently hostile to religion. Many intellectual leaders have ignored that conclusion offered by the Court since the 1980s.

The absurd pretense surrounding the jurisprudence of Hugo Black is one of thousands of symptomatic examples wherein the political ideology of the Democratic Party is rewritten to reflect the idea that FDR, Wilson, Black and others were bending the arc of American history toward justice. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is this symptom of epistemic betrayal that lies at the heart of current national frustrations in politics. It is critical to reassess the absurdities of American history in order to understand the truly patriotic goodness that is America.

Rehab: It's a Process...

Russia's Terms for Ending the War in Ukraine

Russian state news outlet Tass reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin demands the complete withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, after which peace negotiations can begin.

Putin added that Moscow was committed to ensuring the “unhindered and safe withdrawal” of Ukrainian forces if Kyiv agrees to such a concession.

The Kremlin’s conditions are unlikely to receive a warm reception in Kyiv, which has repeatedly stated that it will not concede territory to Russia.

Meanwhile the Unpopular G7 Leaders Meet in Italy

from "The Conservative Treehouse"

The Open Borders Economy...

Anthony Gonzales, "Tyson Foods fires American employees while employing illegal aliens"

Tyson Foods is following in the footsteps of leftist companies across the U.S., having recently fired more than 1,000 Americans from a pork plant in Iowa as the company employs illegal aliens for other factory positions.

The food company recently announced that it would fire nearly 1,300 American employees, some of whom are legal immigrants, from its pork plant in Perry, Iowa. BizPacReview pointed out that the town is home to just 8,147 people and has little crime.

As Tyson Foods shuts down its factory in Iowa, the company is expected to open many job positions in New York and is reportedly seeking 52,000 illegal immigrants to be employed.

“The company has allocated $1.5 million a year for legal aid services and will be providing its new employees with temporary housing, on-site child care, transportation, a relocation stipend, and paid time off to attend court hearings.”

While speaking to Fox Business, a spokesperson for Tyson Foods explained the company’s decision to shut down the factory in Iowa.

“After careful consideration, we have made the difficult decision to permanently close our Perry, Iowa, pork plant,” the spokesperson told the outlet, adding that closing down the factory “emphasizes our focus to optimize the efficiency of our operations to best serve our customers.”

Fox Business noted that Tyson Foods is struggling as the company begins closing multiple facilities.

“In 2023, Tyson Foods indicated six chicken processing facilities would close permanently, and more recently, the company added a pair of ‘case ready value-added’ beef plants to the list of closures, according to the company’s first-quarter earnings report,” Fox Business wrote.

“The shuttering of those facilities, which are located across six states, is meant to ‘optimize asset utilization.’”

During an interview with Reuters, Perry mayor Dirk Cavanaugh said the pork plant is expected to close on June 28, 2024. He said such a move would devastate the community in Perry.

“It’s a big blow to the community,” Cavanaugh said. “It’s our largest employer in the area. It’s going to be tough to figure out what to do without them.”

The food company has several other factories in Iowa that employ more than 9,000 individuals. In September 2023, Tyson Foods disclosed that it employed 139,000 workers, of which 114,000 worked in “non-corporate sites” across the U.S.