Peter Myers Digest: September 1, 2023

(1) Ramaswamy says “God is real. There are two genders. Reverse racism is racism. An open border is not a border”
(2) Trotskyist Gender Identity Theories Now Part of Australian Early Childhood Courses
(3) Expanded BRICS Set to De-Dollarize the World, Control Global Energy Supply
(4) White fertility is bad; migrant births are good
(5) ACMA Australian Ministry of Misinformation will force media to self-censor
(6) RFK Jnr: Fauci was not only a “director of health”, he was also a director of bioweapons
(7) US election simulation conducted by Cybereason, led by ex-members of Israel’s military intelligence unit 8200

(1) Ramaswamy says “God is real. There are two genders. Reverse racism is racism. An open border is not a border”



Ramaswamy Slams Zelensky’s Ukraine, Calling It “Not a Democracy”

Vivek Ramaswamy Slams “Pied Piper In Cargo Pants” Zelensky, Faces Scepticism Over Ukraine Stance

Republican Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has slammed the US support to Ukraine in its war against Russia and says he will end support if elected President. The former biotech entrepreneur derided Ukraine’s President Zelensky as “some kind of Pied Piper from Hamelin in cargo pants”. Ramaswamy accused Zelensky of “slowly bleeding” the world over a war “that’s not going to end well”. Ramaswamy also said that Zelensky and his country were not going to bully NATO and “chain gang” the US into the war.

In his closing statement, he rapped out hard-right talking points once again: “God is real. There are two genders. Fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity.

Combative Vivek Ramaswamy emerges as surprise focal point of GOP debate

Biotech entrepreneur takes on Trump mantle in former president’s absence, drawing heavy fire from other candidates

“Parents determine the education of their children. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to man. Capitalism lifts us up from poverty.”

(2) Trotskyist Gender Identity Theories Now Part of Australian Early Childhood Courses

Marxist and Gender Identity Theories Now Part of Australian Early Childhood Courses

Critical theory is now a core component in early childhood education university courses in Australia

By Nina Nguyen


Rhea*, 23, wanted to become a childcare teacher out of her love for young children. She enrolled in an early childhood education course in Gold Coast, hoping to learn about children’s development, how to take care of them and broaden their world through play-based learning.

She was expecting her student experience to be “practical.” But one month into her course, she found some of the content in the class confusing.

Gender identity theories, postmodernism, poststructuralism, racism, and power struggles are now considered essential knowledge for preschool teachers.

A compulsory reading for her course titled ‘Programming and Planning in Early Childhood Settings,’ viewed by The Epoch Times, stated that “identities, including what it means to be a boy or a girl, are socially constructed.”

In its section about gender, the book encouraged educators to “work with children and families to challenge children’s preconceptions” and “take a critical perspective in analysing gender roles in popular media and educational texts.”

It also told educators to “understand how gendered roles are constructed and how power relations impact on children’s play and their social futures.”

“Educators can use instances of children crossing traditional gender boundaries as opportunities to open up discussions about the limitations of traditional gendered roles and the exploration of alternative practices,” the book said.

“Educators can work with children to help them analyse their own play and gendered relations and to deconstruct dominant discourses.”

The Epoch Times understands the book is widely used as a textbook across multiple university early childhood education courses in Australia, including the Australian Catholic University, Macquarie University, Deakin University, Charles Sturt University, Queensland University of Technology and Swinburne University.

Early childhood courses are becoming increasingly popular with young Australians and international students as the state and federal governments channel more funding into the childcare sector to overcome increasing staff shortages currently being experienced. In 2022, the Commonwealth invested $1.84 billion (US$1.17 billion) over four years in the sector under the Preschool Reform Agreement, while the New South Wales (NSW) government invested $1.4 billion over four years under the Affordable Preschool funding.

Post-structuralism and Gender Bending In Childcare Courses

There are also other materials given to university students studying to be preschool teachers that raise concerns.

A core subject for an early childhood course in one university in Sydney includes a stipulated textbook called “Play in the Early Years,” which has a chapter about how to implement post-structuralism in children’s learning.

It gives an example of a childcare teacher named Miriam Giugni, who wrote about her experiences of “being an activist teacher,” such as when she “actively resisted the gendered perspective being put forward.”

“When Miriam says she is an activist, she refers to her deep commitment to issues of social justice,” the book said.

“Miriam’s centre educates 46 Australian children aged from birth to six years. The staff represent a diversity of ethnicities, genders, sexualities and qualifications.”

The textbook quoted a post-structural theorist who argued that children’s play “is not always either fun or innocent, and can involve politics.”

“In terms of social justice, it doesn’t matter whether it is ‘educational’ or ‘free’ play as it is still vested with relationships of power.”

To illustrate how teachers can put these theories into practice, the book provided an example in which a childcare teacher shared her approach when she heard a girl named Madison tell another kid that she was a boy.

“Did she really say, ‘I’m not a girl! I’m a boy?’ This is juicy data!” the teacher is quoted as saying in her recollection of the book. “I have to talk to Madison about her play. Why is she pretending to be a boy? I wonder who else is a gender bender? How might I find out?”

The book suggested teachers can also apply critical and feminist post-structuralist lense when creating play scenarios for children. For example, teachers can read or role-play stories to “create different endings from the common fairytale plot, where everyone lives happily ever after if they get married.”

“Children can also grow up and live happily ever after if they don’t marry.”

Another example is to adjust the storylines of the children’s story Goldilocks and the Three Bears, in which the biggest bear is the father, the middle-sized bear is the mother, and the smallest bear is the baby bear.

“New storylines can be created, such as mother bear being the biggest, or two daddy bears and baby bear as the family unit or an emphasis on gender-neutral bears.”

Other teaching materials in early childhood courses viewed by The Epoch Times also featured concepts of post-structuralism and post-modernism, which branched out from cultural Marxism, a critical theory that views society through the lens of class struggles.

Influence of Cultural Marxism
According to a special report by the Heritage Foundation, cultural Marxism promotes the abolishment of Western tradition and norms “under the pretence of social justice.”

Instead of setting up conflicts between workers and capitalists as classic Marxism does, cultural Marxism uses race and gender to drive wedges between social groups.

“Cultural Marxism is thus a remodelled Marxism, a mutation. The cultural Marxists’ goal is not to improve the system, but to overturn the existing social order entirely—which they consider to be an enforcer of ‘white supremacy.'”

Meanwhile, Augusto Zimmermann, head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, said Marxism also advocated for the abolishment of the nuclear family.

(3) Expanded BRICS Set to De-Dollarize the World, Control Global Energy Supply

Expanded BRICS Set to De-Dollarize the World, Control Global Energy Supply

A large screen shows a news programme featuring Chinese leader Xi Jinping speaking via video at the opening of the virtual BRICS Summit being hosted by India, on a street in Beijing on Sept. 10, 2021. (Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)

By Darren Taylor


JOHANNESBURG—“The expansion of BRICS has made it clear that the de-dollarization of the international finance system is inevitable.”

This view, from economist William Gumede—who’s also executive chairperson of the Democracy Works Foundation in South Africa—has been echoed around the world since BRICS leaders announced the expansion of the bloc on Aug. 24 at a summit in Johannesburg.

Current BRICS members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

In January, BRICS—originally established in 2009 to represent the world’s strongest emerging market economies—will add Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to its ranks.

Mr. Gumede, one of South Africa’s leading academics and thought-leaders, has been researching the potential impacts of de-dollarization since 2014.

He told The Epoch Times the average per capita GDP of the G7 economies was currently six times that of BRICS economies. But, the unexpectedly swift expansion of BRICS would increase the trade bloc’s share of the global economy much faster than earlier predictions.

“These forecasts did not take into account that BRICS would expand its membership very quickly. A larger BRICS will mean the world will increasingly use U.S. dollars less,” he said.

Mr. Gumede said the bigger BRICS alliance would eventually rival the Group of Seven (G7) large industrial economies of the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Italy, and Canada, which together are home to 16 percent of the world’s population and account for 62 percent of the global economy.

Welcoming the new members in Johannesburg last week, Brazil’s President Lula da Silva said their addition would mean BRICS would represent 46 percent of the global population and 37 percent of the world GDP.

The expansion means BRICS now consists of some of the globe’s largest oil producers: Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Nigeria, another major oil exporter, is set to join when the bloc gets even bigger, probably at its next summit in Russia in 2024.

“BRICS is going to dominate the world’s energy supply,” said Mr. Gumede. “The strength of the U.S. dollar is also partially based on the currency as underpinning oil trade—the so-called petrodollar—and members of OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) settle their accounts in U.S. dollars.

“Therefore, enlarging BRICS to also include the oil producers and persuading them to use a new BRICS currency, rather than the U.S. dollar, to settle their accounts, will be a game-changer. It is likely to accelerate the de-dollarization of the world.”

(4) White fertility is bad; migrant births are good

U.K. Population Collapse “Good for the Planet”, WEF Adviser Prof Sarah Harper Explains

U.K. Population Collapse “Good for the Planet”, WEF Adviser Prof Sarah Harper Explains


Remember how depopulation was called a right-wing conspiracy theory? Things have changed, and ‘population collapse’, which can no longer be denied, is now good for us!

The Telegraph picked the perfect messenger to communicate the new way we should think about population declines. A high-level WEF adviser tells us:

<> Oxford Professor Sarah Harper is a very important person. The Telegraph article listing her credentials forgot to mention that she serves on the Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the World Economic Forum.

Prof Harper is thrilled about recent declines in fertility:

Prof Harper told the Telegraph: “I think it’s a good thing that the high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are reducing the number of children that they’re having. I’m quite positive about that.”

The academic said declining fertility in rich countries would help to address the “general overconsumption that we have at the moment”, which has a negative impact on the planet.

Most importantly, declines in births will bring about reductions in CO2 emissions from wealthy nations, Prof Harper points out:

Research has found that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more goods, travel more and do other activities that generate emissions.

Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger than low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World Bank figures show.

Population Declines or Population Replacement?

Here’s the strange part: If the leadership of the World Economic Forum wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could understand how they would hope that population reductions would lead to a decline in economic output. Aside from moral implications, it is simple math that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less food consumed and so on.

However, something entirely different is going on! While the population of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the levels needed to maintain the population, new immigration picks up. It accounts for a larger and larger share of births!

While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit a record high.

Almost one in three children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside of the U.K. The number of births by women born outside the U.K. rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3% of all births. The previous peak was 29.3% in 2020.

When including the father, more than one in three children born last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the figure was two thirds.

This development is inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations of high-consumption countries. It seems self-defeating to celebrate birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many children and realise the ‘British dream’.

(5) ACMA Australian Ministry of Misinformation will force media to self-censor

The ACMA Ministry of Misinformation will fine Australians $6m for publishing the truth

By Jo Nova

The Government is not afraid of misinformation, they are afraid you will speak the Truth

Misinformation is easy to correct when you own a billion dollar news agency, most academics, institutions, expert committees and 25% of the economy. …

The proposed < Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) misinformation bill is truly the draft that Mao or the Politburo would have admired. Effectively if you are government “approved” (institutional, academic or official news) you are free to say whatever you like, but if you are the untermenschen, you are not — even if you ultimately speak the truth.

Digital media platforms will need to self-censor the vague and unknowable comments that may be misleading and may cause harm or they face monster fines like $6m or 5% of revenue (which for Twitter is something like $150m). The mushy, ill-defined and open nature of this is exactly the point. Which publisher will be able to afford to hire the QC lawyers and run test-trials to figure out in advance if a comment breaches the code? It’s so much easier just to take the safer option and shhh, skip those provocative thoughts.

Misinformation is defined very broadly. It is information that is “false, misleading or deceptive” and is “reasonably likely” to “cause or contribute to serious harm”. The bill then uses an extremely wide definition of harm, which includes things such as harm to the environment, harm to the economy or a section of the economy, or “disruption of public order or society in Australia”.

The Government IS “the truth”:

The bill is very poorly constructed and includes many obvious red flags. Under Labor’s bill, if the government says something, then it is not misinformation. Authorised content from any level of government cannot be misinformation. That same protection does not apply to non-government parties or ordinary Australians commenting on political matters. This is indefensible.

Academics are exempt because there’s no need to control them with ACMA, they can be sacked, <, or defunded already anyhow.

Statements made by academics are exempt, but not statements made by non-academics on exactly the same topics. So an outsider with an unfashionable view could find their contribution has been deleted as misinformation. Given the seismic contributions of unfashionable outsiders throughout history, this shows an extraordinary lack of wisdom.

Statements made as part of “professional news content” are exempt, but those statements are not exempt in other contexts. So if a journalist made a comment on their personal Facebook page, or appeared on an independent podcast, their statements could be misinformation. And if a statement made in “professional news content” is repeated outside of that environment, it would not be exempt from the law.

So if you thought you could quote Professor Peter Ridd on the replication crisis in science, or< fabricated photos in reef research, think again. You may be harming the Spotted Left Wing Parrot fish.

If a Prime Minister were to say < were “the single source of truth”, say, it could be published once in a newspaper but if the punters were to repeat it ad nauseum mockingly on social media, in strictly accurate quotes, that might become misinformation? I mean, the repetition might harm the children’s sense of civic duty, after all? I don’t know, but that’s the point of the spaghetti mess in legalese. < reading it. You are not supposed to know.

ACMA’S coercive powers under the bill are very concerning. Those powers apply not only to digital platforms but to all Australians. ACMA may pursue any person if it believes they have information about “misinformation or disinformation on a digital service” and that it requires the information to perform its functions. ACMA can force the person to appear before it to answer questions about misinformation or disinformation.

Journalists in professional news organizations are exempt, but not citizen journalists

Hypothetically, if any systematic corruption or intimidation (or delusional fashion) were to sweep through our main media outlets (like the idea of chopping healthy body parts off teenagers), an outsider media platform would be the one to point that out, yet they would be subject to “misinformation” codes and draconian fines.

(6) RFK Jnr: Fauci was not only a “director of health”, he was also a director of bioweapons

RFK Jnr: We’re developing bioweapons with 36,000 scientists

RFK Jnr: We’re developing bioweapons with 36,000 scientists

<>By Jo Nova

Maybe the world should talk about bioweapon research?

The way Robert F Kennedy Jnr describes it to Tucker Carlson, it seems Anthony Fauci was not only a “director of health”, he was also a director of bioweapons. And he was the most well paid public servant in the country, thanks to a 68% raise to his salary — which came not from the health department but from the Pentagon. It’s an odd conflict of interest.

Kennedy points out that to deploy an infectious bioweapon you need a pre-prepared successful vaccine so the infectious agent doesn’t make your side sick too. He claims there are something like 36,000 scientists involved in bioweapons research or gain-of-function work in countless labs in the US and overseas. “We have no idea how many there are”.

Kennedy calls it the inverse of medicine, where life scientists are really “death scientists” who make diseases more deadly. In 2014 three bugs escaped from three different labs in high profile breaks, one was smallpox.

“RFK: “Anthony Fauci got all the responsibility for bio-weapons development….[After three bugs escaped] in 2014, 300 scientists wrote to President Obama and said ‘you’ve gotta shut down Anthony Fauci, because he is going to create a microbe that will cause a global pandemic.’ And so Obama signed a moratorium and shut down the 18 worst of Anthony Fauci’s experiments, where most of them were taking place in North Carolina by a scientist called Ralph Baric..

….Instead of obeying that law, Anthony Fauci shifted lots of his operations offshore. And those operations ended up mostly in Wuhan Lab, which is a military lab….and many of them went to Ukraine.”” — <>Bitchute

Most of this research is funded by the Department of Defence, and USAID a CIA program.

This 5 minute segment above, is a part of a ten minute discussion of bioweapons from 35 – 45 minutes in <>the full Tucker Carlson interview. (Which is all interesting).

RFK also mentions that Anthrax was made and used by the US intelligence at the time of the Iraq war. The FBI — after a year of investigation — found that the anthrax came not from the terrorists but from the CIA lab at Fort Detrick.

US Bioweapons were shut down in 1969 thanks to Nixon, who went on to arrange an international agreement to stop bioweapons in 1972. But in 2001 the Patriot Act came in declaring that while they were technically still banned, bizarrely there would be no punishment for any federal official. That effectively rebooted the bioweapons arms race which had been dormant for 30 years.

The last 70 years has been the safest medical era to be alive in history. It’s time we discussed the new wellspring of pandemics. That’s a lot of labs…

(7) US election simulation conducted by Cybereason, led by ex-members of Israel’s military intelligence unit 8200

Why a Shadowy Tech Firm With Ties to Israeli Intelligence Is Running Doomsday Election Simulations

Why a Shadowy Tech Firm With Ties to Israeli Intelligence Is Running Doomsday Election Simulations

A shadowy tech firm with deep ties to Israeli intelligence and newly inked contracts to protect Pentagon computers is partnering with Lockheed Martin to gain unprecedented access to the heart of America’s democracy.


JANUARY 4, 2020

This article was originally published on MintPress News <> Election Day 2020: 32 Americans dead, over 200 injured, martial law declared and the election itself is canceled. While this horrific scenario seems more like the plot of a Hollywood film, such was the end result of a recent simulation examining the preparedness of U.S. officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Secret Service against “bad actors” seeking to undermine the upcoming presidential election.

Yet, this simulation was not a government-organized exercise but was instead orchestrated by a private company with deep ties to foreign and domestic intelligence services, a company that is also funded by investors with clear connections to individuals who would stand to benefit if such a catastrophic election outcome were to become reality.

Much of the rhetoric since the last presidential election in 2016 has focused on the issue of foreign meddling by U.S. rival states like Russia, while China has emerged as the new “meddler” of choice in American corporate media as the 2020 election approaches. Though time has revealed that many of the post-2016 election meddling claims were not as significant as initially claimed, the constant media discussion of foreign threats to U.S. democracy and electoral processes – whether real or imagined – has undeniably created a climate of fear.

Those fears have since been preyed upon by neoconservative groups and the U.S. military-industrial complex, both of which are hardly known for their love of demcratic processes, to offer a series of ready-made solutions to these threats that actually undermine key pillars of American democracy, including <> independent reporting and <> voting machine software.

However, many of the very same media outlets and groups that frequently fretted about Russia, China or another rival state meddling in U.S. democracy have largely ignored the role of other nation states, such as Israel, in efforts to sway <> the last U.S. election in 2016 and meddle in numerous elections in <> Africa, Latin America and Asia in the years since.

As a consequence of this climate of fear, it should be hardly surprising that the corporate media lauded the recent 2020 election simulation that ended in an abysmal failure for U.S. officials, the cancellation of the U.S. election and the imposition of martial law. Yet, none of those reports on the exercise noted that the company that hosted the simulation, called Cybereason, is led by ex-members of Israel’s military intelligence unit 8200, advised by former top and current officials in both Israeli military intelligence and the CIA. In addition, it is funded by and partnered with top U.S. weapons manufacturer and government contractor Lockheed Martin and financial institutions with clear and direct ties to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and White House adviser and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Also left unmentioned in media reports on Cybereason’s election simulations is the fact that Cybereason’s CEO, Lior Div, has<> openly admitted that he views his work at Cybereason as a “continuation” of his service to Israel’s intelligence apparatus.

With Cybereason planning to host more simulations in cooperation with federal agencies as the U.S. election inches closer, a deeper exploration of this company, its ties to intelligence and military contractors in the U.S. and Israel and its financial ties to key Trump allies both domestically and abroad warrants further investigation.

In this two part series, MintPress will not only explore these aspects but also how many of the technologies wielded by the “bad actors” in the Cybereason election simulation have been pioneered and perfected, not by U.S. rival states, but by Israeli companies and start-ups with clear ties to that country’s intelligence apparatus.