Breakfast For The Brain Weekend Edition

Have a great weekend.

World Economic Forum: The Coming Threats from Cyber Polygon

Via The Liberty Loft

The next “simulation” planned by the World Economic Forum (WEF) is Cyber Polygon 2021, an event that our overlords assure us is wholly done for our protection. The WEF has been staging the Cyber Polygon “cyberattack exercise” annually since 2019.

This is an event, scheduled for July 9, to pay close attention to, but also pay attention to the months following as the history of such simulations tend to lay the groundwork for real world chaos shortly thereafter. And also keep a watchful eye on how the globalists’ agenda is advanced while the elitists profit off the chaos.

The WEF’s founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, said: “One of the most striking and exciting transformations caused by the pandemic has been our transition to the digital ‘everything,’ both in our professional and also in our personal lives.”

“We all know but still pay insufficient attention to the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyberattack, which would bring to a complete halt the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen, in this respect, as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack… It is important to use the COVID-19 crisis as a timely opportunity to reflect on the lessons cybersecurity community can draw and improve our preparedness for a potential cyber pandemic,” Schwab said.

So, Schwab is telling us something worse than the tyranny we’ve allowed our government to perpetrate on us over the last year-plus is on the horizon, and we should take that as a threat.

Remember, the WEF ran a simulation, Event 201, prior to the COVID-19 tyranny which is detailed by Johnny Vedmore and Whitney Webb:

“In recent decades, such events have often been preceded by simulations that come thick and fast before the very event they were meant to “prevent” takes place. Recent examples include the 2020 US election and COVID-19. One of these, Event 201, was co-hosted by the World Economic Forum in October 2019 and simulated a novel coronavirus pandemic that spreads around the world and causes major disruptions to the global economy—just a few weeks before the first case of COVID-19 appeared. Cyber Polygon 2021 is merely the latest such simulation, co-sponsored by the World Economic Forum. The forum’s current agenda and its past track record of hosting prophetic simulations demands that the exercise be scrutinized.”

Be prepared for internet and power outages, lack of communications, disruptions to supply chains from food to fuel and disruptions in so many aspects of your daily lives. MORE.

What is Behind Gen. Mark Milley’s Righteous Race Sermon? Look to the New Domestic War on Terror

By Glenn Greenwald

The overarching ideology of Pentagon officials is larger military budgets and ongoing permanent war posture. Their new war target, explicitly, is domestic “white rage.”

For two hundred forty years, American generals have not exactly been defined by adamant public advocacy for left-wing cultural dogma. Yet there appeared to be a great awakening at the Pentagon on Wednesday when Gen. Mark Milley, the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at a House hearing. The Chairman vehemently defended the teaching of critical race theory at West Point and, referencing the January 6 Capitol riot, said, “it is important that we train and we understand … and I want to understand white rage. And I’m white.”

In response to conservative criticisms that top military officials should not be weighing in on inflammatory and polarizing cultural debates, liberals were ecstatic to have found such an empathetic, racially aware, and humanitarian general sitting atop the U.S. imperial war machine. Overnight, Gen. Milley became a new hero for U.S. liberalism, a noble military leader which — like former FBI Director Robert Mueller before him — no patriotic, decent American would question let alone mock. Some prominent liberal commentators warned that conservatives are now anti-military and even seek to defund the Pentagon.

It is, of course, possible that the top brass of the U.S. military has suddenly become supremely enlightened on questions of racial strife and racial identity in the U.S., and thus genuinely embraced theories that, until very recently, were the exclusive province of left-wing scholars at elite academic institutions. Given that all U.S. wars in the post-World War II era have been directed at predominantly non-white countries, which — like all wars — required a sustained demonization campaign of those enemy populations, having top Pentagon officials become leading anti-racism warriors would be quite a remarkable transformation indeed. But stranger things have happened, I suppose.

But perhaps there is another explanation other than righteous, earnest transformation as to why the top U.S. General has suddenly expressed such keen interest in studying and exploring “white rage”. Note that Gen. Milley’s justification for the military’s sudden immersion in the study of modern race theories is the January 6 Capitol riot — which, in the lexicon of the U.S. security state and American liberalism, is called The Insurrection. When explaining why it is so vital to study “white rage,” Gen. Milley argued:

What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that out. I want to maintain an open mind here, and I do want to analyze it.

The post-WW2 military posture of the U.S. has been endless war. To enable that, there must always be an existential threat, a new and fresh enemy that can scare a large enough portion of the population with sufficient intensity to make them accept, even plead for, greater military spending, surveillance powers, and continuation of permanent war footing. Starring in that war-justifying role of villain have been the Communists, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Russia, and an assortment of other fleeting foreign threats.

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. intelligence community, and President Joe Biden, none of those is the greatest national security threat to the United States any longer. Instead, they all say explicitly and in unison, the gravest menace to American national security is now domestic in nature. Specifically, it is “domestic extremists” in general — and far-right white supremacist groups in particular — that now pose the greatest threat to the safety of the homeland and to the people who reside in it. MORE.

Blackness Fatigue: Enough Is Too Much

Via The Unz Review

Methinks the US may very well be heading toward a social explosion. The phrase “race war “is overwrought if it implies organized units and chains of command. However, in a country awash in firearms, a bloody, disorganized, continent-wide eruption is possible. To think “it can’t happen here” is complacently inattentive. We have already seen it in temporal and geographic piecemeal in the Fergusons and Portlands and Baltimores, in the armed anarchy of the cities. Arguably a broader uprising has failed to happen only because of intense pressure from government and media, and because whites have not acquired a sense of racial identity. If they do, or when they do, Katie bar the door.

Both racial war, and its close cousin, ethnic war, result from contact between groups of different kinds—that is, diversity, which causes most of the world’s bloodshed. Americans seldom notice this. One reasons is that they are constantly told that diversity is a blissful state. But it isn’t. Consider: Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, Sunnis and Shia in many places, Jews and Moslems in Palestine, Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi, Hindus and Moslems in India and nearby, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Chinese and Indonesians in Indonesia, French and Africans in Paris, and so on. The assertion that “diversity is our strength” seems an attempt to avoid realizing that it isn’t.

Racial and ethnic conflicts are cruel, often explosive, and irrational. They seldom make sense because the devastation and hideousness are disproportionate to the assigned causes. For example, the differences between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland are so slight as probably to be undetectable to you and me, yet the two fought murderously for years, blowing up pubs packed with member of the other faction. In the American case, nice and good-hearted people will point out that blacks are warm and friendly people if they like you, immensely talented in this and that, have legitimate grievances’ against society, and so on. All true. And irrelevant. Similar things can be said about both sides in most ethnic conflicts.

The prospect for bloodshed grows in the presence of other forms of social tension and is probably proportional to suppression of mention of the frictions. You can’t solve a problem if you don’t admit that it exists. The United States today is bent to the breaking point under many stresses other than racial. Severe economic uncertainty, declining standards of living, growing economic inequality, crushing debt loads to include student debt that hinders normal formation of families, hatred—not too strong a word—between Trump people and the coastal elites who rule the country, actual poverty in Appalachia, the Rust Belt, and the rural South, large and growing homeless populations, immigration, and the recent discovery that America consists of many cultures that do not like each other: New England, Alabama, West Virginia, Jews, Latinos, These constitute a poisonous accelerant that will detonate easily and intensify any conflict.

Note that most of the whites involved in the Floyd eruption were not greatly interested in blacks. They appeared to be bored young with no prospects and much free-floating anger looking for an outlet. The prolonged rioting in Portland involved fairly few blacks. Blacks themselves are furious over being at the bottom of society, also with no prospects, a condition they blame, with encouragement from the media, on racism. If this were the case, it would be easy to correct.

Then, ominously, the imposition of black cultural norms on whites. America is being utterly remade to conform to the desires of blacks, this being pushed by people most of whom do not like blacks. How many of them go to black ghettos to eat, or send their children to black urban schools? Rather the whites opposing “systemic racism” seethe with hostility to the deplorables, whom they detest. and want to shove blackness down their throats. In doing this they are threatening things dear to at least half of the white population: their culture, children, physical safety, and sense of propriety. This is not smart.

The danger is that a flashpoint will come, that for example BLM will mob the wrong house in the wrong state and the occupants will open fire, leaving a dozen dead. The entire country would explode. Nice well-intentioned whites would not be able to protest that they supported the fight against systemic racism. That is not how racial and ethnic wars work.

We are seeing a ferocious attack on the underpinnings of white European civilization , and for that matter of all actual civilizations. Japan, India, China, South Korea—none would buy into the enstupidation and degradation. Neither would Argentina or Mexico, which try to raise their cultural levels. Only America is on a downward path, in search of social justice. MORE.

San Francisco is paying $60,000 PER TENT for a homeless encampment and now city officials want an additional $20 million

Via The Daily Mail

San Francisco’s homelessness department is seeking $20 million in additional funding to extend an encampment program that already funds tents that cost over $60,000 a year.

This week, officials from San Francisco’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing went before the the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Appropriations Committee and requested $20 million over the next two years to keep six ‘Safe Sleeping Village’ tent encampments running.

The city’s six encampment sites provide tents for the homeless as well as three meals a day, around-the-clock security and bathrooms and showers, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The city created the sites in May 2020 during the height of the pandemic as a way to keep the city’s homeless population off of crowded sidewalks and shelters, and into socially distanced camping sites in fresh air.

The program currently costs $18.2 million and funds 260 tents in six sites, totaling to just over $60,000 per tent per year, which is twice the median cost of an apartment in the city.

The department is now asking the city for $15 million in the upcoming fiscal year for a similar number of tents, which would amount to about $57,000 per tent per year, the Chronicle reported.

The additional $5 million will be for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, when officials plan to significantly ramp down the program.

The eyepopping cost of the tents and the city’s desire to extend a program that was supposed to be a short-term solution to the pandemic has been met with criticism.

Supervisor Ahsha Safai questioned the $20 million request, which she said ‘seems like an exorbitant amount for something that we’re trying to transition (away from) as quickly as possible.’

Gigi Whitley, the homeless department’s deputy director of administration and finance, pointed out that most of the funds actually go towards security, meals and the rented shower and bathroom facilities.

But supervisors at Wednesday meeting said the high cost must be re-examined, the Chronicle said.

‘It is a big deal to have showers and bathrooms, and I don’t dispute that,’ Supervisor Hillary Ronen said. ‘But the cost just doesn’t make any sense.’

The entirety of the the tent program is funded through Proposition C, a 2018 business tax measure that collects money for homeless services.

San Francisco is expected to spend over $1 billion on homelessness over the next two years due to Proposition C, the Chronicle reported. MORE.

Reporter gets lab to test Subway tuna sandwiches. The lab found no identifiable tuna DNA

Via True Pundit

Fast-food sandwich chain Subway is currently facing a class-action lawsuit over the contents of the tuna product the company offers its customers.

A weekend New York Times report took a look at what goes into the eatery’s tuna offerings — and even had some sandwiches tested by a lab. The Times said the lab found no identifiable tuna DNA in the tuna sandwiches the paper had tested.

For the report, Times reporter Julia Carmel purchased 60 inches of Subway tuna sandwiches from three different franchises across Los Angeles.

Carmel noted that she removed the tuna from the sandwiches, froze it, and then paid $500 for analysis from a third-party commercial food testing lab to conduct a PCR test to determine the composition of the food. The lab, she said, was “already wary about the challenges of identifying a fish that’s been cooked at least once, mixed with mayo, frozen and shipped across the country,” but agreed to the testing regardless.

The lab — its identity not disclosed — tested the fish over a period of 30 days and determined that “no amplifiable tuna DNA was present in the sample,” and thus the lab did not obtain any “amplification products from the DNA.”

“Therefore,” the lab concluded in its findings, “we cannot identify the species. MORE.