Of all the vaccine videos I've seen this week, this one is the most haunting. Many case of autism REGRESS into autism. The child is initially healthy. Then, in many cases, shortly after vaccines, the parents notice a shocking loss of function. I've seen several videos where the parents describe this. Admittedly, this is not true of all cases of autism, but it is true of many.
Speaking of assassinations, J.K. Rowling occasionally posts some of the many death threats she receives. They are shocking in their intensity and details. What has she done to deserve these threats? She recently took the time to spell out her positions on gender ideology. I follow these issues closely and I largely agree with her on these issues (though I have other opinions too and some of my view are more nuanced). This makes me wonder. Instead of framing the issue broadly as one of "gender ideology," I wonder how people would respond to the individual points that Rowling raises below? Or, at least, how would they respond if they could vote by secret ballot, without any fear that someone would harm or kill them? I assume that almost all people would agree with many or most of her positions. I would like to see the data.
Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:
Here is Rowling's Sept 1, 2025 post:
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?
That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?
That men don’t belong in women’s sport?
That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?
That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?
That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?
That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?
That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?
That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?
That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?
That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?
That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?
That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?
Let me have your thoughts.
Here's a good way to end this post, with Rowlings' post from yesterday:
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
Why don't we simply see politicians we disagree with as politicians we disagree with? How is it that so many people seem then as so morally degenerate that we need to get rid of them and the end justifies the means?
The end result of this conditioning is what is currently flooding BlueSky (the social media platform catering especially to people leaning to the Left) in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk:
People don't simply get banned from social media. There's always a back story and we rarely know the details. And since at least 2020, that back story has typically involved the elaborate machinery of the censorship-industrial complex, including corporate media, NGOs and the U.S Government.
Charlie Kirk has now been assassinated, but the story of his banning in 2020 is instructive. Matt Taibbi has investigated the 2020 banning of Charlie Kirk in "Twitter Files: The Muzzling of Charlie KirkAt a crucial juncture in the 2020 presidential election, the Washington Post used a tried-and-true method to pressure Twitter to remove Kirk." Here's an excerpt:
Kirk was banned once, then finally actioned again, and again, with groups like the DFRLabs and New Knowledge working with the Washington Post and other outlets to advertise the action.It's always the same story. People being censored/banned/shadow-banned and it takes a hell of a lot of work by uniquely stilled, motivated and rare people like Matt Taibbi to get to the bottom of it. Therefore, we rarely every know what really happened. How elaborate is this censorship machinery? In this post, Camus summarizes a video by Robert Malone explaining the Fifth Generation PysOp that we are up against:
Efforts to remove Kirk aren’t urgent background to his assassination, but the episodes do play a part in the overall story. Unquestionably, antagonists of Kirk and Donald Trump recognized that he was an important Internet voice, and the repeated actions sent a signal that he needed to be removed — either for spreading “disinformation” or for more dubious claims of “inauthentic” activity. That there were repeated efforts to go after the same person before the 2020 election also speaks volumes. No other figure in Trump’s orbit had the kind of reach with young people and the same Internet savvy.
Dr. Robert Malone unveils the unsettling architecture of modern control.In true 5th generation warfare, you never see your opponent. The question isn't "who," but "what." What is the puppet master behind the globally harmonized COVID crisis? Klaus Schwab? Biden? Fauci? These are but surrogates. The true managers of the message remain hidden.
Over the last three years, a silent coalition formed. Western governments, NGOs, transnational organizations, Big Pharma, media conglomerates, and financial corporations merged into public/private partnerships—a euphemism for the new fascism.
Their mission: To execute the most massive, globally coordinated psychological operation in the history of the Western world.
Their weapon: The very same military-grade PsyOps strategies, tactics, and technologies developed for modern combat theaters.
Their target: Their own citizens.
We have been subjected to a perpetual, calculated campaign designed not to inform, but to direct. To manipulate. To control.
The world we believed existed is gone. It's time to see the battlefield for what it is.
Here’s MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd shortly after Charlie was shot: “I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.” And: “You can’t stop with these sort of awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful actions to take place.” And also: “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration, we have no idea.” That makes more sense, right? A right-wing gun nut pointing a gun directly at the guy talking and pulling the trigger to celebrate him—that is definitely the most likely scenario. Later, facing outrage for its coverage, MSNBC apologized for these comments and ended Dowd’s contract.
Well, that’s MSNBC. But CNN? Within a few hours of Charlie’s slaughter, CNN anchor Abby Phillip was calling for the video to be censored, and did her best to do so from her pulpit. “The degree to which the algorithm on this platform is pushing video of the shooting is incredibly disturbing. There has to be some human that can turn the dial down in a situation like this.” Odd how reporters want much, much less reporting. Funny how she didn’t say that about a situation like, I don’t know, George Floyd’s killing. It’s almost like it’s political. ...
And then came the New York Times obituary. A classic. The headline: “Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Provocateur and Close Ally of Trump, Dies at 31.” Right-wing provocateur. A person trying to provoke, if you think about it. As though there’s no belief system behind it. Just a provocateur. For the sake of it. In the mainstream media worldview, there are two kinds of people: those fighting for left-wing causes, who are described as people of conviction, activists for justice, deep believers in equality. And then there are those fighting for right-wing causes, who are described as provocateurs, cynics, racists, and shills. Archconservatives. They eventually changed the headline. But here’s the New York Times’ obituary: “He was so vocal in his willingness to spread unsupported claims and outright lies—he said that the drug hydroxychloroquine was ‘100 percent effective’ in treating the virus, which it is not—that Twitter temporarily barred him in early March 2020. But that move only added to his notoriety and seemed to support his claim that he was being muzzled by a liberal elite.” Fascinating. A man is murdered in public, in the middle of the day, while practicing his First Amendment rights, and the paper of record decides this must be the perfect moment to do fact-checking about hydroxychloroquine.
What you need to know from this: If your politics are that of a standard normie conservative man, your New York Times obituary will find the various things you said that weren’t exactly right (he got into hydroxychloroquine in 2020! Can you believe that?) and they’ll paint them in the sky. My politics are lib centrist, and these people would certainly celebrate my death, highlight my many errors, and refer to my defense of the SAT as my “repeated advocacy for a return to slavery” or something. What I’m saying is: Just try to stay alive because when you die, a New York Times reporter gets to juice your corpse for likes on Bluesky. MSNBC will invite talking heads on the air to suggest that the shooter could have been your mom who forgot to turn the safety on, we simply don’t know."
Nellie's TGIF column at The Free Press is one of my favorite parts of every week. I highly recommend it.