“Kids gonna kid. Vaccines gonna protect.” No. Clearly not. We all know that now. Yet this billboard went up last week two blocks from my home in urban Los Angeles, paid for by “MyTurn.ca.gov.” How did we arrive at this level of government-manufactured Pravda nonsense?I believe I can lay it out for you simply and succinctly, without getting lost in the details and murkiness of the influence of China or the minutiae of immuno-genomics. The search for a clear explanation for how we regressed from a nation that was the envy of the world to an idiocracy, an international laughingstock, has been met with many dead-ends over the past two and a half years. Many conspiracy theories still attract large groups of followers, despite a lack of convincing evidence. There is really no need to be preoccupied with them now, because much of the truth has already been revealed. That truth is easy to see, track, and verify. Perhaps someday we will know whether the conspiracies turn out to be true. Right now, though, we can be certain of the main details of a massive crime of opportunity, perhaps the biggest single crime in human history. Its victims: a nation of fear addicts.In summary: All roads lead to the “vaccine.”In spring of 2020, a cabal of government, media, and corporate interests launched the greatest and most successful propaganda campaign ever developed. They joined forces to demonize, cancel, and destroy any individual who even suggested there are existing effective, cheap, safe, and readily available treatments for what was then called the Chinese Wuhan virus. This became obvious to me when I spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court later that summer with a group of physicians to stand up for medical freedom and the right of doctors and patients to make decisions about medical care independent from government intrusion. That day in under eight hours we reached over 12 million people through social media. Within 24 hours, though, every feed, recording, and other evidence of our talk had been scrubbed from the internet. This was coordinated. This was intentional. And it was done to protect the only viable path forward toward universal “vaccination.”The Emergency Use Authorization or EUA allows for a medical treatment to be provided to Americans without FDA approval, provided no viable alternative currently exists. Many viable treatments existed in 2020 to treat the Wuhan virus, including hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, steroids, antibiotics, antidepressants, anticoagulants, vitamin D, zinc, and aspirin. These drugs or supplements had all been around for decades, and the drugs had all been FDA-approved for other illnesses for decades as well. Any FDA-approved drug can be legally and ethically prescribed for other medical conditions, under a doctor’s supervision. That is how medicine is practiced, at least it was until 2020. Had these treatments been widely offered to patients infected with the Wuhan virus in the first half of the year, we would have seen a survival rate approaching 100%. All epidemiology reports support this. My colleague, Dr. Brian Tyson, treated more virus patients that year than any physician in the US—over 8,000. Of those who came to him within seven days of symptom onset, not one died. The public health department in the county where he works reported a death rate of 3% with “standard of care,” which meant no care at all. Why would anyone want to increase the death rate of a relatively weak but highly contagious respiratory virus by denying care?Denying care to patients infected with the Wuhan virus ensured the EUA would remain in place once a “vaccine” was found to treat the infection. We now know (and have known for some time) that no real vaccine was ever developed, only an experimental therapeutic injection based on mRNA technology. That therapeutic was universally unsuccessful in preventing infection or transmission, and is now widely understood to have ended far more lives than it saved. In fact, there is no substantial evidence that it has saved any lives at all. This is not in dispute among rational or honest people. That is why several countries have now banned its use, including Denmark, for all but the most elderly in the population. Of course, the question remains—why protect a path forward for an experimental therapeutic that doesn’t work and actually harms people?Alex Berenson provides an answer to that question in his recent&nbsp;<a href="https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/behind-every-great-fortune?utm_source=email">Substack</a>, “Behind every great fortune…” The two main mRNA product manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, have earned a combined $110 billion in sales from their injections since December 2020. Not only that, but their profits have been greater than any product they have ever made, because they didn’t have to spend a dime on advertising or marketing—our tax dollars covered that. Every billboard ad, commercial, flyer, and “free vaccine” kiosk was paid for by government dollars that came out of our pockets through taxes. These pharmaceutical companies also have no incentive to ensure the products are safe, because any drug produced to address a public health emergency is automatically protected from product liability laws under the Preparation Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005. No matter how many adolescent boys die of heart damage, no matter how many mothers lose their newborns to fatal hemorrhages or strokes, no one may file a lawsuit. All profits are protected.Even with a mass propaganda campaign to vilify real treatment, though, it would have been impossible to convince an entire population of Americans to risk their lives with an experimental, unproven, unsafe drug had the cabal not included one additional element: fear. Many Americans remain naïve to the risks of unproven medical products. They are inherently wary of taking on unknown risk without a good reason. And they were given one. They were told to be afraid. The campaign of fear began in earnest the moment the elites realized it would be possible to produce a “vaccine” that could reap financial dividends never seen before—tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars. That money would be shared among a small group of insiders: politicians, bureaucrats, pharmacies, social media corporations, online retailers, public sector unions. By announcing to the American people that they were all going to die unless they stayed home and waited for a “vaccine,” the greatest fraud in history came into existence—a fraud of opportunity.Daily death counts became standard in every news broadcast. Yellow tape was draped over playground equipment in local parks. No one could buy food without covering his face with a mask. Every aspect of everyone’s life became saturated with messages of fear, no matter how irrational. Spraying Amazon packages with bleach became a necessary and virtuous act.And so here we are today, with many lives lost—sacrificed—from the callous denial of basic medical care, all to promote an entirely ineffective and harmful drug so that the greatest transfer of wealth in human history could be successfully achieved. The result is a population addicted to fear, paralyzed in its thinking, unable to exercise common sense and make basic day-to-day decisions that any child can do without a second thought. Waiters in restaurants continue to wear masks, as do bikini-clad women riding their cruisers on the Santa Monica beach bike path. We are a nation of fear addicts, acting like idiots.This is where the “vaccine” road has led us. Read my book, Freedom From Fear, for the way out.&nbsp;Mark McDonald, M.D.Psychiatrist and author of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dissidentmd.com/">United States of Fear: How America Fell Victim to a Mass Delusional Psychosis</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dissidentmd.com/">Freedom From Fear: A 12 Step Guide to Personal and National Recovery</a>

iStock-494255962.jpg

How Americans became fear addicts

McDonald: The pandemic in a nutshell

This Wednesday, the senior editor of NPR, Uri Berliner, announced that he would be resigning from the organization for which he has worked for the past 25 years.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My resignation letter to NPR CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/krmaher?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@krmaher</a> <a href="https://t.co/0hafVbcZAK">pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK</a>— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) <a href="https://twitter.com/uberliner/status/1780610524411048183?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 17, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The day before he tendered his resignation, Berliner had been suspended from NPR for five days without pay, due to the criticism of his colleagues regarding a piece he wrote for The Free Press, excoriating NPR for its progressive bias.&nbsp;&nbsp;The apology as a weaponInstead of resigning, Berliner could have apologized, recanted, and moved on — as many have done before him, especially when they cannot afford to lose their source of income. The more people take this route, the harder it is to be the outlier, especially as that outlier can be ostracized not only at work but also in his entire social circle, and perhaps even among family and relatives.In an environment where backing down and repenting one's “unwoke” ideas is increasingly idolized, groupthink becomes swiftly embedded and harder to resist.According to Dr. James Lindsay, embedding groupthink is part of the plan, and the plan was hatched not in the United States but in China, where its finer points were tested on the native population before being exported in order to destabilize and weaken China's main rival on the world stage.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="681" height="383" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MjQp-ZLu0oI" title="James Lindsay on Struggle Sessions: Have Chinese Political Warfare Tactics Influenced American DEI?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>Dr. Lindsay explains that the “crimes” of the DEI age are intentionally vague.<blockquote>They're training you to recognize your crimes on a predetermined set of terms … and their goal is to pressure you psychologically into figuring out in their terms how you harmed other people.</blockquote>He notes the extensive use of the word “harm," a typically vague term that is essentially impossible to prove or refute.When a person is accused by someone in the workplace or any other setting of having “harmed” someone, he continues, what happens is that the person's social milieu is “weaponized” against them. The person comes under tremendous psychological pressure to “just apologize” and restore the good name of the company, social group, family etc.<blockquote>This is psychological torture that's effected through manipulating the social environment around you to create psychological struggle so that you recognize crimes that are ill-defined in reality…It ends with you selling yourself out.</blockquote>&nbsp;DEI or DIE?Berliner is a prominent example of what is happening in workplaces in many places around the world, where those who dare to resist the prevailing worldview of the institution (even, or perhaps especially, if said institution is supposedly practicing even-handed, <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">government-sponsored</a> journalism) are aggressively weeded out.According to a recent representative <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/the-edi-tax-how-equity-diversity-and-inclusion-is-hobbling-british-businesses/?mc_cid=1c18d61fed&amp;mc_eid=33114c8522&amp;utm_source=substack&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">survey</a> conducted in the U.K., training in DEI (referred to in Britain as EDIC—Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Climate) is endemic in the British workplace. 65% of those surveyed said that they had been obliged to undergo some form of diversity training by an employer.Among those who underwent DEI training, the majority reported that they had felt compelled to hide their true opinions of the content. Over one in five said they had “said what they ought to say rather than what they thought.” Among Black and Asian respondents, this proportion rose to almost one in three. Apparently, their caution was well-founded, as 36 percent of those surveyed said that they had witnessed staff being penalized for challenging DEI training and 12 percent said they had seen staff fired.Almost half of those surveyed who went through training said that what they were forced to learn conflicted with their values, and almost a third of respondents said that they had left a job because their employer adopted “woke” ideology. Here, too, the proportion was higher among minority groups and also among those who identify as LGBT.&nbsp;The survey did not examine the reasons why those identifying as LGBT should object to woke ideas, but recent activity on the part of organizations such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/14/lie-of-gender-identity-spurred-founding-of-lgb-alliance-court-told" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LGB Alliance </a>against trans-promoting groups perhaps gives a clue to where they are coming from. While woke-trans is an ideology, many who call themselves L, G, or B do not allow their form of intimate attraction to define their entire identity and object to giving it so much prominence.The report's authors concluded that DEI is operating,<blockquote>… in effect, as a tax … Many ambitious employees and senior managers are leaving companies because of the excessive time they're expected to spend on these courses … Genuine diversity of thought is required for any business to thrive, but much EDIC training is having the opposite effect and embedding a new form of groupthink.</blockquote>According to Dr. Lindsay, this is exactly the plan being implemented by influential elements who have succeeded in permeating virtually all U.S. institutions, from the armed forces to the universities, corporations to smaller businesses, government local and federal — essentially, everywhere. Whether or not the United States will be next to adopt draconian thought-police laws like those now in place in Scotland remains to be seen.

Thumbs up.jpg

wokeness

New survey shows DEI destroying workforce caliber, creating 'groupthink'

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

By Alex NewmanAs the global war on educational liberty heats up, Johns Hopkins School of Education is launching a new “<a href="https://education.jhu.edu/edpolicy/policy-research-initiatives/homeschool-hub/">Homeschool Hub</a>” that has experts and advocates deeply concerned. Many say it is part of the escalating effort to bring homeschooling families under government control.&nbsp;The new entity is funded by advocates of taxpayer funding for private and home education. The United Nations education agency in recent years has called on governments to fund “non-state education providers” with tax money in order to impose “equity” goals, national testing regimes, “non-discrimination” schemes, and more.&nbsp;Leaders in the homeschooling movement and Christian education told The Newman Report that this scheme by Johns Hopkins posed a “clear and present danger” to home educators. From the information that is publicly available so far, those concerns do not appear unreasonable.&nbsp;Virtually the entire leadership of prominent national and state homeschooling organizations have been opposed to government funding of home education. In fact, homeschooling families and advocacy organizations have been a constant thorn in the side of “school choice” advocates seeking to get home educators hooked on tax funds.&nbsp;The reason why leaders of the homeschooling movement have been largely united on the issue is simple. They believe control and regulation by government will be the inevitable result of taxpayer money — especially since this is what the historical record shows. Concerns about dependency and expanding the size and scope of government exist, too.However, by bringing a new player into homeschooling world — a powerful voice backed by academic credentials and big money seeking “school choice” funding — critics are concerned about possible nefarious intentions. The goal seems to be, in part, to sideline and displace existing voices in the movement. &nbsp; &nbsp;On its website, the new “Homeschool Hub” styles itself the “one-stop shop for current information on homeschooling data, regulations, and research across the United States.” Supposedly, in-depth data and information on all fifty states will be made available on the site, though it has not been fully fleshed out yet.&nbsp;“As homeschooling continues to expand and evolve, we need a better understanding of this growing and diversifying education sector,” argued Dr. Angela Watson, Homeschool Hub creator and assistant professor of education. “We need policy based on facts, not historical stereotypes. My hope is that the Homeschool Hub will help fill these needs.”There are already multiple established and credible services offering exactly that kind of information online. These include the <a href="https://hslda.org/">Home School Legal Defense Association</a> (HSLDA), a powerhouse with detailed insights on the legal environment serving hundreds of thousands of member families that opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;Another major resource on homeschooling data and research is the <a href="https://www.nheri.org/">National Home Education Research Institute</a> (NHERI). Widely recognized as the top repository for research on homeschooling in the world, NHERI and its leader, Dr. Brain Ray, have long been seen as the “one-stop shop” for the latest news, data, research, and insight into homeschooling. Dr. Ray also opposes government funding and control of homeschooling.&nbsp;On its website, the Hub suggests that it will seek to displace those sources to help inform future regulation and policy on home education. “Our goal is to remove barriers to rigorous research, increase transparency, and expand awareness to encourage evidence-driven policy,” the site says without explaining what barriers it believes may exist to research or “evidence-driven policy.”&nbsp;As the far-left Washington Post strategically targets existing homeschooling leaders and institutions, the new hub aims to become “the leader” in the field of homeschooling research. “As homeschooling grows, the Homeschool Hub will serve as the leader in promoting rigorous homeschool research and responding to the need for more transparency from this growing sector,” the site added.&nbsp;When the establishment speaks of “transparency,” that is generally a dog whistle for increasing surveillance, control, data-gathering, and intrusions on privacy.The new hub’s website, citing unnamed supposed “critics,” also cites the alleged risks that “unregulated” home education might feature, including “indoctrination” or even that parents with “conservative Christian values” may seek to “isolate” their children. &nbsp;On April 25, the new Homeschool Hub, hosted at Johns Hopkins “Institute for Education Policy” and its “School of Education,” will be holding a major event on home education. Headlined “Beyond the Traditional Classroom: The Rise of Homeschooling and Its Impact on Education in America,” the event will formally launch the new hub, according to the announcement.Numerous high-profile panelists with no real ties to the homeschooling movement will participate. These include various university officials and faculty members, an adviser to the scandal-plagued World Bank, an “education reporter” at the viciously anti-homeschooling Washington Post, and a senior U.S. Department of Education official.&nbsp;Johns Hopkins, notable for pioneering transgender mutilation of children and other barbarism, is open about the fact that it is partnering with <a href="https://www.edchoice.org/">EdChoice</a>, a well-known and well-funded group seeking what it calls “school choice.” The movement, launched by legendary economist Milton Friedman, is among the leading advocates of tax funding for home education and private schools. &nbsp;Meanwhile, Johns Hopkins is based in Baltimore, Maryland, the first state that sought to create a state-run homeschooling “council” to supposedly speak for homeschooling families and advise authorities. The controversial plan, which became a lightning rod of criticism among home educators, was widely seen as a ploy to bring in regulation and control.&nbsp;<img class="image_resized" style="width:332px;" src="https://i0.wp.com/www.freedomproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/3364780_1225x377_2500.jpg?resize=696%2C214&amp;ssl=1" alt="">With homeschooling becoming a major threat to the government’s “education” narrative and monopoly, it is no surprise to see the establishment work to crush it, co-opt it, or both. Tyrants across the United States and around the world are openly waging war on home education. As such, homeschool leaders and families are right to take the threat seriously.&nbsp;Originally published at <a href="https://www.freedomproject.com/2024/04/17/tnr20240417/">FreedomProject Media</a>.<a href="https://libertysentinel.org/author/admin/">Alex Newman</a> is an award-winning international journalist, educator, author, and consultant who co-wrote the book “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.” He writes for diverse publications in the United States and abroad.

Hopkins.jpg

Education

US News

University launching new 'Homeschool Hub;' experts and advocates deeply concerned

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

<h2>Genetic engineering puts the natural world at risk</h2>Genetic engineering going from the lab, to the field, to the wildYou may have heard about the genetically modified mosquitos <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01070-x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">released</a> in Florida to mitigate a Florida invasive species spreading zika and dengue, yet that is only one aspect of how synthetic biology (synbio) can affect nature. Jim Thomas of ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration) <a href="https://www.etcgroup.org/content/video-lab-field-forest" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spoke</a> about the potential dangers synbio may have on biodiversity and how we look after, conserve, share, and use the natural world.The video below, in which Thomas discusses the threats and new trends we'll have to start dealing with, gives us a window into a world that most of us may not be aware of, but should. His talk results from a discussion held by the Convention on Biological Diversity's Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group.&nbsp;Thomas brought forward the following three issues associated with the technology and nature:1. Tools of genetic engineering are being put out into the field. Previously, genetically engineered organisms would have been created in the lab. Now they can release genetically engineered viruses or organisms into the field that can genetically engineer other organisms out in the field. Examples he called "crazy" include a “project by the US defense establishment called ‘insect allies to genetically engineer plants’.” He expressed “worry about it being a potential bioweapon but also a big shift in terms of doing the genetic engineering in an uncontrolled environment and changing nature.”2. &nbsp;Synbio is being used for conservation applications. Previously, biodiversity and conservation were about protecting the natural world. Now synbio is being used for such projects as eradicating invasive species by releasing synthetic organisms or genetically engineering corals to withstand climate change. “The idea that conservation could be done by making synthetic ecosystems is a really big shift” he said.. . . . [N]ow you've got these proposals of turning the natural world into a kind of synthetic version of itself and that could really upturn how we protect the wild and natural world.&nbsp;3. Machines and algorithms, artificial intelligence, and robots are taking over genetic engineering.&nbsp;<blockquote>Large automated genetic engineering foundries called biofoundries that use artificial intelligence to make tens of thousands of organisms at a time, not from a human's mind but to design them using artificial intelligence, . . . &nbsp;and one day to go out into the environment. And, it raises a real safety question because, if you have something go wrong, you potentially don't understnd why it went wrong. With artificial intelligence, it's a bit of a black box. . . . If you're asking artificial intelligence to redesign nature and release that into the environment then you've got a big problem in terms of trying to understand safety and if something goes wrong understanding what went wrong.&nbsp;</blockquote>The group of experts, Thomas said, all “felt that there needs to be a process for scanning the horizon and monitoring and assessing new developments in genetic engineering. We began to set out what that should be . . .”<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e7ES6ZYNTjA" title="From the lab to the field to the forest: synthetic biology" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>

trees.jpg

Technology

'The idea that conservation could be done by making synthetic ecosystems is a really big shift'

Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence

21 shades of…The University Hospitals of North Midlands (UHNM) has unveiled not just one but twenty-one flags, in order to demonstrate “inclusion.”<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">In support of Pride Month, University Hospitals of North Midlands unveiled a new LGBTQ+ inclusion banner at Royal Stoke. The banner shows 21 different flags representing that everyone is welcome here at UHNM. Read more <a href="https://t.co/A541Z9pbRV">https://t.co/A541Z9pbRV</a> <a href="https://t.co/FCPGK7gEsI">pic.twitter.com/FCPGK7gEsI</a>— UHNM NHS Trust (@UHNM_NHS) <a href="https://twitter.com/UHNM_NHS/status/1668959772266168321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>&nbsp;For those who need to be brought up-to-date, here is a short guide to the flags:<ol style="list-style-type:decimal;"><li>Rainbow: Gay “pride” flag</li><li>Progress: “Pride” flag with the addition of stripes for trans, black, and brown people</li><li>Bisexual: Attracted to both sexes/genders</li><li>Pansexual: Attracted to “all genders”</li><li>Nonbinary: People who don't identify as either male or female</li><li>Transgender: People who identify as the opposite sex</li><li>Asexual: Those who feel no sexual attraction to anyone</li><li>Intersex: A genuine biological (and extremely rare) condition where someone has physical traits from both sexes</li><li>Gay</li><li>Lesbian</li><li>Polysexual: Attracted to “more than one gender”</li><li>Agender: Those who reject gender identity and “have none at all”</li><li>Androgyne: Those who don't look either masculine or feminine</li><li>Genderfluid: Unstable identity, veering between genders, multiple identities, and no identity at all</li><li>Genderqueer: Not following “gender norms”</li><li>Neutrosis: Lacking specific “gender identity”</li><li>Aromantic: Having little or no romantic feeling for others</li><li>Demisexual: Having sexual attraction to another only after becoming emotionally attached</li><li>Demiromantic: Having romantic attraction to another only after becoming emotionally attached</li><li>Polyamorous: Having relationships with multiple people simultaneously</li><li>Straight ally: None of the above, but “supports” them all</li></ol>&nbsp;Where's my flag?Commenting on UHNM's post, one X user wondered where “his” flag was.&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Which flag represents straight people?— Noah Matter (@matter_noah) <a href="https://twitter.com/matter_noah/status/1779823700235186397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Although the goal is “inclusion” and “making everyone feel welcome,” this apparently does not extend to those who are “straight” (i.e., heterosexual) and do not support the legitimization of traditionally non-standard lifestyles and practices.&nbsp;Fiddling while the hospitals burnOther X users wondered whether the money invested in this expression of “inclusion” might not have been better spent by the government, given the dire state of the UK's National Health Service.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">Unbelievable. And in the city of my birth too. How much money was wasted on this? You should be treating the ill, not pushing this crazy activist rubbish.— Will C (@wjec77) <a href="https://twitter.com/wjec77/status/1780001702269128872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>&nbsp;Let's hoist these flags everywhere!Lisa Thomson is the Director of Communications and Charity and Executive Sponsor of the LGBTQ+ Staff Network (earning around $100,000 per year as an NHS “Director of People"). She <a href="https://www.uhnm.nhs.uk/latest-uhnm-news/posts/2023/june/uhnm-unveil-lgbtqplus-inclusion-banner-at-royal-stoke/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stressed </a>that she was delighted at the initiative and hoped that others would adopt its message:<blockquote>It is fantastic to see our message “Everyone is Welcome Here” proudly displayed in the main entrance at Royal Stoke Hospital. Unveiling it in Pride month is really important as we need to actively show our support for colleagues from LGBTQ+ communities.&nbsp;Both the colleagues we work with and the people we care for come from a wide range of background [sic.] and represent many different communities. It is important we celebrate our differences and work together to ensure everyone is made to feel welcome. I the [sic.] look forward to seeing the banner up at County Hospital.</blockquote>&nbsp;Years of “gender oppression”?Other outraged X users focused their ire on UHNM's “gender” policy:<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">You stop chemically castrating gay boys yet?— Chris {∜} (@ChrisFourOhFour) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisFourOhFour/status/1780003381316141090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>In its <a href="https://www.uhnm.nhs.uk/media/9035/20230929-c64-supporting-transgender-individuals-foi-ref-196-2324-2-of-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Policy Document</a> “Supporting Transgender Individuals,” UHNM sets out its commitment to “promoting an inclusive, diverse workforce … supporting human rights … to ensure that people are not discriminated against or disadvantaged…"UHNM's attitude toward woke ideology is perhaps best encapsulated in clause 1.4 which states:<blockquote>When a person transitions as an adult, sometimes in middle age or later, the years of oppression of the person’s gender identity at any age may have contributed to a deteriorating mental state. The treatment is therefore life enhancing and even lifesaving and is not taken lightly; it is not a lifestyle choice.</blockquote>&nbsp;Is “Demi” code-language for “moral”?According to <a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-demisexual-5082519" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">verywellmind</a>, the word “demisexuality” became more mainstream as far back as 2008. They describe a demisexual person as someone who,<blockquote>experiences sexual attraction only when they feel a true emotional bond with another person.</blockquote><a href="https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-demiromanticism-means" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">WebMD</a> defines a “demiromantic” person as,<blockquote>someone who only develops romantic feelings for another person when they have a strong emotional connection to them.</blockquote>Whatever one's views on the other 19 items on the list, it is possible that the inclusion of two terms that signify a move toward traditional morality is a step in the right direction, if only to give young (and older) people a "woke" option of refusing close physical contact outside the bounds of marriage.

flags.jpg

Medical

Public outraged at use of taxpayer money

21 'inclusion' flags but none for heterosexuals

McDonald: The pandemic in a nutshell

How Americans became fear addicts

Related Articles

Mother of COVID Hospital Protocol Victim: ‘He Drove There and Left in a Body Bag’

MSM blackout on massive rallies in Japan against WHO and super-warp-speed 100-day vaccines

Got milk? It might not be real

Exclusive: Drug research on pregnant women could become the norm

Latest Articles

Made in China: How Mao's minions weaponize DEI to subvert America

Johns Hopkins Homeschooling: Big Ed Seeking to Control Next Generation of Home Educators

Danger ahead! Changing the natural world with genetic engineering and artificial intelligence

21 'inclusion' flags but none for heterosexuals