Is this reparations or something?

The PA Supreme Court, wouldn’t overturn obvious election fraud, but they didn’t hesitate to overturn a rapist’s conviction and set Bill Cosby free:

Bill Cosby will be released from prison today after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court overturned his sexual assault conviction, ruling that prosecution from five women who weren’t involved in his trial impeded his chances of a fair trial. 

The Justices also ruled that a prior remark by Montgomery County District Attorney Bryan Castor that he was not going to prosecute him, led Cosby to make incriminating comments in a civil deposition, that prosecutors later used to make their case against him.

Cosby, 83, was the first male star to be brought down by the #MeToo era. He was convicted of drugging and assaulting Andrea Constand, but he was accused in public discourse and civil lawsuits of assaulting many more women. Their claims couldn’t be prosecuted because they fell outside of statutes of limitations. 

One presumes Harvey Weinstein is next. The Hellmouth isn’t about to accept any restrictions on its minions’ behavior.

No law, no evidence

Corporations are being encouraged to hide the evidence of adverse vaccine effects even though the law requires record-keeping:

The DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will re-evaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.

Employers can rely on the statement that the recording requirement will not be enforced through May 2022. 

OSHA is openly violating the law for fear of appearances. This only underlines the importance of stopping the shots. 

A very bad bargain

Karl Denninger does the math and demonstrates that you are 20 times more likely to have your heart permanently damaged by the not-vaxxes than die of Covid:

Here you go folks, from a mainstream media outlet.

The US Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis to fact sheets for Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccines Friday. The warning notes that reports of adverse events following vaccination — particularly after the second dose — suggest increased risks of both types of heart inflammation. Earlier this week, vaccine advisers to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention heard that the agency had received about 1,200 reports of such heart inflammation after 300 million doses of the two vaccines had been given. CDC has confirmed about 300 of those cases, many of them among young men and adolescents.

I will point out that the odds of a healthy under-18 person being killed by Covid-19 are approximately 1 in 250,000 in the US.  Only a small percentage of the total 150 million or so “vaccinated” (note that most are 2-dose, so the 300 million number is an attempt to cut the actual risk in half) are in kids thus far, perhaps 15 million or so.  It is thus roughly 20 times as likely as you will get hit by this if you’re a young person as you will die of Covid.

Further, a material percentage of these cases have reduced ejection fraction detected and materially elevated troponin values, both of which imply serious cardiac compromise.  That damage is likely permanent and the mortality rate from this condition is not encouraging.

Clearly, for an underlying disease that is almost-never fatal in healthy people under 30 that’s a bad bargain….  The FDA has now admitted that I, and a few others who blew the whistle on this months ago in terms of both the dangers from the shots and what was going to happen with the virus originally were right and yet exactly zero of those who were conned have nutted up and taken out the trash, so spare me the crying when it goes bad on you and those you love.  That which you cheered on deserves zero sympathy from anyone.

Throw in the Israeli data indicating that there are 2 vaccine deaths for every 3 Covid deaths, and that bad bargain becomes a very bad one that crosses the line into reprehensibly stupid territory.

Do. Not. Get. Vaxxed. There is absolutely no reason or excuse or rationalization that can scientifically or statistically justify doing so under any circumstances. Not even if your obese, immuno-suppressed grandmother with asthma is celebrating her 95th birthday, your wife is threatening to divorce you, and your boss is threatening to fire you. 

Do not do it.

Wednesday AM Arktoons

ALT★HERO Episode 10: To Read a Man’s Soul

DEUS VULT Episode 10: Feast Upon Their Flesh!

Arktoons subscribers will be pleased to learn that we are going to be introducing a third weekly four-panel comic soon, as the great economist Steve Keen has agreed to partner with me in authoring RICARDO RETARDO, a comic that will be both funny and massively informative. We also have several new series coming from Brazil and Poland, and Ben Garrison is going to begin running his editorial cartoons twice a week.

We also plan to offer a limited number of gold-stamped leather editions of MIDNIGHT’S WAR omnibuses in the upcoming crowdfunding campaign. They will be printed in black-and-white rather than color to make them even more distinct and exclusive.

Before anyone asks about ALT★HERO:Q, we are waiting for Helix Haze to finish up his commitments to another comics publisher so that he can illustrate issues 5 and 6. After trying several alternate illustrators, I made the call to wait for him rather than introduce a new art style. In the meantime, please enjoy it on Arktoons while you wait for us to finish the print editions.

Speaking of crowdfunding, it may interest you to know that SOULSIGHT, who is introduced in today’s episode of ALT★HERO, was the creation of one of the primary backers, as is RYU NO SEISHIN.

And finally, MIDNIGHT’S WAR defeated HYPERGAMOUSE and A THRONE OF BONES defeated SWAN KNIGHT’S SAGA, so you can now vote to determine the champion of ARK MADNESS.

Why we fear the night

The Tree of Woe contemplates the time when orcs were real, and makes a case for the legends of orcs, goblins, trolls, and other monsters being atavistic human memories of Homo neanderthalensis:

Neanderthals were apex predators. Analysis of isotopes of bone collage has shown that Neanderthal diet was 97{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} meat. They are estimated to have eaten 4.1 lbs of fresh meat per day. Ample evidence exists to show they used stone-tipped wooden spears to hunt. From the bones littering their caves, we know Neanderthals hunted woolly mammoths, giant cave bears, woolly rhinos, bison, wolves, and even cave lions – the most dangerous and lethal animals on earth.

Neanderthals were cannibals. A number of Neanderthal sites reveal bones that have been cut and cracked open to extract the marrow. While this hypothesis was initially rejected a recent find at El Sidron in Spain revealed numerous Neanderthal skeletons with the unmistakable marks of butchery by cannibals wielding hand axes, knives, and scrapers.

Neanderthals had more robust bones and heavier musculature than Homo Sapiens. They weighed 25{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} more. They were so heavily muscled that their skeletons had to develop extra thick bones. “One of the most characteristic features of the Neanderthals is the exaggerated massiveness of their trunk and limb bones. All of the preserved bones suggest a strength seldom attained by modern humans…” (quoting paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus). “A healthy Neanderthal male could lift an average NFL linebacker over his head and throw him through the goalposts.” Neanderthals also evolved extremely thick skulls – “postcranial hyper-robusticity” — that protected them in close-quarter confrontation with prey. They all had kyphosis, with hunched backs, that gave them a distinct profile and gait.

Neanderthal teeth were twice as large as human teeth. According to 2008 anthropologist research, their mouths could open much wider than human mouths, enabling them to take extremely large bites. Judging by the size of the jaw, they had tremendous bite force.

Neanderthals evolved in Ice Age Europe and had specific adaptations to that climate. They had short limbs, large noses, and compact torsos. Most importantly, they were covered with thick fur!

Since no Neanderthal cadaver survives, this point cannot be proven. But Vendramini points out that every primate except Homo Sapiens is covered with fur, and that every cold-adapted mammal during the Ice Ages had thick fur, including mammals that were hairless in Africa, such as the elephant and rhinoceros. There is no reason to believe Neanderthals were hairless except for our desire for them to look like us. The only way Neanderthals could have survived in the Ice Age without fur was if they made thick, protective clothes. Archeologist Mark White points out “Neanderthal clothing would have needed to be more than the ragged loincloth… of popular depiction. Some form of tailoring would have been required…” But Neanderthal sites have yielded “no evidence of needlecraft technology.” They weren’t making clothes — because they had fur.

The Neanderthal that Vendramini describes is thus a terrifying creature: A hunched cannibalistic predator with large, shining eyes and an animalistic snout, covered by thick fur and massive muscles, built for close combat, hunting by night, with a brutish and guttural voice, and a huge mouth with huge teeth and powerful jaws. It didn’t look like Fred Flintstone. It looked like this:

That, my friends, is an orc. Or a bugbear. Or an ogre. Whatever it is, it’s been appearing in our myths and legends for thousands of years. It’s the great enemy.

Given how crazy the world has become in recent years, at this point, it wouldn’t come as a great surprise to learn that there are still Neanderthals living in caves deep under the Alps, running the World Economic Forum from Davos. 

Flight cancellations increase

 A few days ago, the link between the not-vaxxes and flight-related thrombosis was blamed for an unusually large number of flight cancellations over a two-day period:

At British Airways, at least four pilots have died this week, but the airline wants you to know that their deaths are totally unrelated; Reuter’s and Fact Checkers are working hard to dispel any rumors that the pilots could have died from the COVID-19 vaccine. British Airways boasts that 85{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} of its employees are vaccinated. Airlines are so quick to obey the COVID-19 vaccine narrative that they forget the welfare of their own employees is at stake.

According to, 120,000 cancellations per year is the average for global flights. An average day would see 329 cancellations. A 2 day average would see 658 cancellations. But between Friday and Saturday, 3,533 cancellations occurred. That’s a 580{cc08d85cfa54367952ab9c6bd910a003a6c2c0c101231e44cdffb103f39b73a6} increase in cancellations globally in the past 2 days.

The number of flight cancellations have not only remained high since then, but are steadily increasing: 1780, 1753, 2256, 1885, 2239 for a daily average of 1982.6 cancelled flights, six times more than usual. And as more pilots, flight crew, and passengers experience adverse affects, we can expect that number to rise.

Although it’s only 10 AM on the East Coast, 1447 flights have already been cancelled today. As with the growing number of heart attacks in people under thirty, this is the sort of hard observational data that cannot be easily concealed or explained away by the corrupt vaccine pushers.

The role of debt

Yesterday, we launched Steve Keen’s EconComics on Arktoons. If you’re inspired to dig a little deeper in order to understand the very important role that debt plays in the economy, I would encourage you to read this extended essay on the subject written by the greatest living economist.

You may wish to keep in mind that Steve is a Man of the Left, whereas I am a Man of the Right, to the extent those labels even apply to economics anymore. What that means, in practical terms, is that while our perspective on the optimal solutions tend to differ, our perspective on the current state of things tends to not only be very similar, but to have far more in common than either of us do with the average Neo-Keynesian economist like Paul Krugman or Neo-Classical economist like Thomas Sowell, neither of whose models even begin to take debt into any account at all.

Regardless, Steve is on the very, very short list of people whose opinions I always take seriously and seek to understand, no matter how extraordinary or unlikely they may strike me at first glance.

Below is a selection from his interview with GQ Spain, so read the whole thing there.

GQ SPAIN: What is the role of public debt and private debt in the next great financial crisis?

STEVE KEEN: If conventional economics were correct, then there shouldn’t have been a crisis at all in 2007—and this is exactly what mainstream economists said at the time. In June 2007, two months before the crisis began, the Chief Economist of the OECD predicted that “sustained growth in OECD economies would be underpinned by strong job creation and falling unemployment” (Cotis 2007 , p. 7).

Since there was a crisis—the worst since the Great Depression before Covid hit—there must be something wrong with conventional economic thought. And there is, because it asserts that the actual details of money don’t matter to macroeconomics—that the macroeconomy can best be understood by ignoring money, and treating the economy as a barter system. To quote a Neoclassical economist on Twitter:

Most people who teach macro do it by leading people through simple models without money …You can even do banks without money [yes!]. And it’s better to start there. Then later, study money as it superimposes itself and complicates things, giving rise to inflation, exchange rates, business cycles.

With this belief, they have never built a framework for analysing how money is actually created. Instead, they developed a “supply and demand” model of lending called “Loanable Funds”, where savers lend more when interest rates are high, and borrowers demand more when interest rates are low, and the market sets both the quantity lent and the interest rate. In this model, banks act as “intermediaries”, taking in deposits from savers and lending them out to borrowers. In their model, if the government enters the market as a borrower, then it adds to the demand for money, thus driving up interest rates and “crowding out” private investment, which lowers the rate of economic growth.

In 2014, the Bank of England categorically declared that this model was wrong: banks do not take in deposits from some customers and lend them out to others, but instead, “Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits” (McLeay et al. 2014, p. 1). This means that private lending doesn’t cancel out, as the mainstream still believes. Instead, rising bank debt creates new money and causes a rising amount of spending, while falling bank debt destroys money and contracts spending. This is obvious in the data: when credit is positive and rising, unemployment falls; when credit is negative and falling, unemployment rises.

America shows the same pattern: rising credit, falling unemployment; falling credit, rising unemployment.

It’s also obvious when you look at the actual way in which money is created: I invented a software program to enable that, called Minsky. It very easily shows that mainstream economics have things backwards: rather than bank loans shuffling existing money between savers and borrowers, bank lending increases the money supply; and rather than government deficits adding to the demand for money, they add to the supply of money.

The process of money creation is actually very simple, as the Bank of England pointed out. Most money today is in the form of bank deposits. To create money therefore, you have to do something that adds to bank deposits. Both bank lending and government deficits qualify, but in different ways.

Bank lending increases deposits while repaying debt reduces deposits, so if net lending is positive, bank deposits increase, and hence so does the money supply.

Since people borrow in order to spend, rising private debt stimulates aggregate demand and asset prices, making the economy—and the government—look great to conventional eyes. The economy booms, unemployment falls, and booming tax receipts make the government look like it is responsible by running a surplus. But if the rate of growth of private debt—otherwise known as credit—turns negative, then everything unravels. The economy goes into a recession, unemployment rises, asset prices fall, and government debt increases—and if it didn’t, the recession would be far deeper.

This is because, as well as being wrong about what banks do, the mainstream is also wrong about government deficits and government debt. Rather than deficits meaning that the government has to take money away from the private sector—which is what the mainstream thinks the government does when it sells bonds to cover a deficit—the deficit creates money by increasing the bank deposits of the private sector.

In simple terms, by not studying the accounting involved in government deficits, they have wrongly classified them as increasing the demand for money, when in fact they increase the supply of money. So all the arguments they make have it back the front: deficits crowd in private spending and investment by increasing the supply of money and, if anything, they drive down the interest rate, rather than driving it up.