2020 April « Aletho News

How to Get Rid of a POTUS

By John Quincy Adams | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 13, 2020

In the Soviet Union there was an expression “The Organs of State Security” or “Organs” for short. Their supposed power in the USSR was one of the things that separated them from what we used to call “the free world”. Not so much any more – the American Organs came very close to getting rid of the so-called Most Powerful Man in The World. They made only one mistake; they probably won’t next time.

The impeachment of US President Donald Trump is over, or at least this iteration is. This was not a normal impeachment, it was an attempt by the Deep State, the Organs of State Security, the Blob, the Borg – later we will learn what its members call it – to remove a president of the United States. After some false starts, it succeeded at every step except the very last one. But, as they say, practice makes perfect and the Organs have learned from their mistake.

Note that such a removal only becomes necessary when the Organs have failed to block a challenger, a Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard for example, who might question the status quo. But, in 2016 they failed and, to the amazement of the wise ones, Trump won the election. His remarks about getting along with Russia showed that he might wander off the path The Organs had laid out. The Organs got to work. They first stirred up opinion that he was so unfit for office that getting rid of him would be laudable, no matter how it was done. Not so difficult given the small number of “news” media owners in the USA well trained to take their lead from “anonymous sources in the intelligence community” and not so difficult because the losers were so bitter. He was -phobic – islamo-, trans-, homo-. He was -ist – rac-, sex-, class-. Limited mental abilities, psychological instability, personal deficiencies, incapable, dangerous. An entire theory of incapacity was built on a typo. Each attempt faded and was forgotten – faithless Electors, 25 ^th Amendment, Logan Act – nobody remembers the details, but the stink remains.

But these produced no effective actions. There are only two ways to get rid of an American president if you are unwilling to wait until the next election – murder or impeachment. Media hysteria creates an atmosphere but it doesn’t get anything done.

It’s an experiment – this fails, that fails, try something else. So the Organs moved to another idea – treason as grounds for impeachment. The seeds had been planted – “All 17 intelligence agencies” agreed that he was the nominee of a hostile foreign power. Three years on an inquiry intended to provoke him, but he resisted the provocations and, eventually the inquiry had to admit it found nothing. But the accusation is always there – enemies of the Organs, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein are accused of being puppets of the foreign power.

Trump talks a lot and, sooner or later, will say something the Organs can seize on and twist. And he did. A phone call to a subservient foreign leader provided the opportunity and The Organs of State Security took it. One operative became a “whistleblower” – he didn’t overhear the phone call, didn’t know what it said but did know that a fellow operative was “visibly shaken“. Another operative actually said it out loud:

In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine’s prospects, this alternative narrative undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.

Read that again because it’s an important stage in the History of the Decline and Fall of America. “Inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency”. That’s what they think should make foreign policy, not transient presidents (never mind Art 2 Sec 2). This is the moment when even the dullest should have understood that yes there is a Deep State, the Organs do exist and its operatives call it The Interagency.

The president is already unpopular, many think he must be removed and now The Interagency says he is a traitor. The opposing party stages a show in which “witnesses” from The Interagency testify that he is a traitor because he says or will say, does or will do something that violates “the consensus views of The Interagency”. Like trade Alaska to Russia for support. The House brings bills of impeachment charging that he has weakened national security (The Interagency told us so) and obstruction of justice (many members are ex-prosecutors and built their careers on plea bargains and obstruction of justice charges; that charge is an automatic reflex.)

But the plot failed in the Senate. The Interagency must be wondering what would have happened had it produced, at the right time, compromising information on 20 or 30 senators.

We recapitulate. Should someone who threatens The Interagency manage the improbable feat of climbing over the obstacles and becoming president, The Interagency will

Start a campaign at which obedient media scribes, quoting “people familiar with the matter“, throw all the accusations they can find or imagine. Details will be forgotten but surely, with such clouds of smoke, there must be some fire somewhere. Easier still if members of The Interagency become TV pundits themselves.
Gather all the compromising information The Interagency has – the NSA keeps everything – on Congressmen and be prepared to deploy it. Easier still if members of The Interagency become members themselves.
Wait for some event in which the POTUS goes against The Interagency Consensus.
Use the compromising information in the House to start an inquiry which listens to testimony from Interagency operatives that the POTUS has violated The Interagency consensus and threatened national security.
The House charges him with 1) endangering national security and 2) obstruction of justice.
Use the compromising information to get enough Senators to vote to remove.
Repeat as necessary until every candidate understands who really runs things.

And that’s how how do it.

And The Interagency nearly pulled it off – 20 or 30 Senators, confronted with evidence of sexual or financial peccadilloes (or, these days, -isms or -phobias), could have been “persuaded” to do the right thing.

And so, as Adams foresaw two centuries ago, step by step, America, having bound “an imperial diadem” to her forehead, has ceased to be “the ruler of her own spirit”. The Interagency – built up for the pursuit of monsters – very nearly ate the government. It failed only at the very last step.

April 13, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties | CIA, The Interagency, United States | 4 Comments

Tax the Rich! An Alt-Right Plan to Virtually Eliminate Income Tax

By Thomas Dalton, Ph.D. | Occidental Observer | April 12, 2020

Everybody loves to hate taxes. As the old saying implies, taxes are right up there with death among humanity’s least favorite things. Yet they are as old as civilization itself; tax records have been found from as far back as the Ur III dynasty of 2,000 BC, and possibly older. And we can be sure that its residents paid them grudgingly. Tax resistance is a perennial theme in history, dating back to Jesus, at least, and his alleged “forbidding us to pay taxes to Caesar” (Luke 23:2). Lady Godiva’s mythic ride through Coventry was allegedly on behalf of excessive taxes. Dozens of wars, revolts, and uprisings in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries occurred over taxation. We all know of the infamous “no taxation without representation” and the Boston Tea Party, leading to the American Revolution. Thoreau was briefly jailed in 1846 over a failure to pay taxes, in an act of civil disobedience against the Mexican-American War. Among the American public, there was significant resistance to tax increases during both World Wars and the Vietnam War. Even today, scarcely a month goes by without some anti-tax action making the news somewhere in the world.

And yet, everyone except pure anarchists wants some level of service from their government, and thus we all more or less accept the inevitable. Everyone has their favorite governmental program that they want funded; but they always want someone else to pay for it. We all would love to get something for nothing from the feds. But most of us realize that government cannot function without revenue, and that it cannot simply create money out of thin air—at least, not indefinitely. And so we pay.

Most galling of all, I suppose, is income tax: government “tribute” taken directly from our paychecks, before we see a single penny. Long hard hours put in, the daily grind, dealing with obnoxious bosses and coworkers, moronic customers, deadlines, 60-hour weeks…and then the government steps in and takes its “fair share.” We can sometimes get tricky and defer payment until Tax Day, but eventually the bill comes due; and we pay. In the US, the average worker pays 20–25 percent of income to the federal government, and another 5 percent to state or local governments: upwards of a third of our income, gone, lost, squandered.

But what if we—most of us, anyway—didn’t have to pay any income tax? What if we could have all the same governmental services that we do today, but surrender nothing from our hard-earned paychecks? It may surprise the reader to know that, for most of the history of the USA, citizens paid no income tax at all. And for decades more, only a very small percentage paid them. For 150 years, it worked. What if we could have that again? And what if the lost funds could be covered, in large part, by that most prosperous of ethnic minorities? There would be a sort of sublime justice in that, would there not?

A Short History of Taxation in America

Born out of tax revolt, the early United States government was uniquely sensitive to the question of taxation. Much of the debate centered on the role and size of a federal government. The so-called federalists, like Madison and Hamilton, argued for a strong central government and hence significant taxation, whereas others like Jefferson defended a small, decentralized, states-rights model that necessarily required lesser federal taxes. But neither side wanted to tax the nation’s farmers and small businessmen, and so it was agreed that import taxes—tariffs—would be employed to fund the government. These were easy to collect at ports of entry, and they had the added benefit of protecting nascent American industries. Tariffs, along with a few selected excise taxes on specific commodities, funded the entire federal government.

Correspondingly, the early government was relatively small. At no time in those early years did federal spending exceed 5 percent of the nation’s GDP; whereas today, the figure is around 21 percent.[1] Jefferson’s argument evidently held sway, for well into the nineteenth century. The US continued to rely almost exclusively on tariffs and minor excise taxes, right up to the Civil War. Thus, for the first 85 years of its existence, the United States had precisely zero income tax.

With the advent of the Civil War in 1860, things changed, at least temporarily. The Revenue Act of 1861 imposed a 3% tax on income over $800 (equivalent to about $25,000 today). The income threshold was lowered the following year to $600, thus bringing in additional revenue. In 1864, the rate increased to 5% for most wage-earners, and up to 10% for the highest incomes. In any case, it was all justified only by the exigencies of war. With Union victory in 1865, the on-going need vanished and the income tax was rightly abolished a few years later.

For the next two decades, the nation again relied on tariffs for the vast majority of its funding. But meanwhile, pressure to reduce them steadily grew, in part to allow for lower prices for businesses and consumers on imported items. Congressmen realized, however, that another tax would be needed to offset the lost revenue. Hence came the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, which reintroduced income taxes, now of 2% on earnings over $4,000—equivalent to about $120,000 today. It was truly a tax for the well-off.

Unfortunately for the government, it was also unconstitutional. When a New York company, Farmer’s Loan and Trust, attempted to enforce the law, a wealthy stockholder, Charles Pollock, objected, sued the company, and won in the Supreme Court. It seems that, at the time, the US Constitution had no provision for a “direct” tax on income without a complex system of apportionment, i.e., payment back to the states. In effect, by the court’s ruling, the income tax was functionally abolished. For the next 20 years, the feds again had to rely on import tariffs.

This little dilemma was resolved in 1913 with the passing of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It reads, in full: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” There were some oddities connected with both the wording of the amendment and the ratification process, but I won’t go into those here.[2] In any case, Congress wasted no time, and the Revenue Act of 1913[3] reduced tariffs but imposed a 1% tax on income over $3,000, rising to a rate of 6% on incomes over $500,000. The income threshold of $3,000—about $78,000 today—effectively applied only to the top three percent of earners; a full 97% of Americans were unaffected. The vast majority of people continued to pay no income tax.

The Revenue Act of 1913 was gladly signed into law on October 3^rd of that year, by first-term president Woodrow Wilson. For his part, Wilson seems to have been the first president elected with the full blessing of the Jewish Lobby. As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish”.^[12] His major political donors were Jews, including the likes of Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and Louis Brandeis. Wilson was also the first president to fully reward their support; Morgenthau was named ambassador to the Ottoman Empire and Warburg was appointed as the first chairman of the newly-formed Federal Reserve. Later, Baruch would assume vast powers in his War Industries Board, and Brandeis would become the first Jew on the Supreme Court.

Onset of War

Meanwhile, trouble was brewing in Europe. A complex series of treaties and alliances, combined with the untimely assassination of Archduke Ferdinand on 28 June 1914, inaugurated the First World War. For a full two years, the US avoided entanglement. Wilson ran for his second term in late 1916 with the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But to no avail; soon after winning, he declared war on Germany, in April 1917.

With the US now involved, revenues would need to be drastically increased, and one obvious means was via the income tax. Hence the War Revenue Act of 1917: a quadrupled rate of 4% (still with a $3,000 per year income threshold), along with incremental marginal rates ranging from 1% to 50%.

Into the last year of the war, 1918, rates again increased: combined rates ranged from 6% to 77%. Also, the income threshold was lowered to $1,000 per year (for individuals), drawing in many more taxpayers—though still amounting to just five percent of all taxpayers.

Postwar, the US experienced both the Roaring ‘20s and the Great Depression of the ‘30s, all while retaining the same basic tax structure. As Benjamin Ginsberg explains,

Prior to the New Deal [of the 1930s]…a high tax threshold and numerous exemptions meant that only about 3 percent of American adults were subject to [income] tax. … The system depended on more or less voluntary compliance by a small number of well-to-do individuals. This meant that income taxation was not at first a major source of federal revenue.[13]

Thus, right up until the eve of World War Two, and excepting for a few years during the Civil War, the vast majority of Americans paid no income tax at all—in over 150 years. But that was about to change, thanks to Hebraic influence in the US Treasury.

Onset of War (again)

Just as Henry Morgenthau, Sr.’s political patronage of Wilson earned him a prime governmental post, so too his son, Henry Jr, earned the favors of the next wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt. Henry Jr and FDR went back many years, well before the latter’s stint as governor of New York in the late 1920s. As FDR prepared for his run for president, Henry and other Jews were there, happy to donate. As Myron Scholnick explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to Roosevelt’s pre-nomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt. Gov. Lehman, Jessie Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.” Once the primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily underwritten by Bernard Baruch”.[14] As with Wilson, FDR did not fail to reward his donors; Morgenthau, for example, was named Secretary of Treasury in early 1934.

But it wasn’t only Morgenthau, of course. In time-honored tradition, Henry brought in a host of fellow Jews to help direct American economic policy. “Among those working for Morgenthau at Treasury were large numbers of Jewish economists and statisticians, including such contemporary and future luminaries as Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein, and Milton Friedman, who helped to fundamentally change America’s tax system…”[15] And change it they did.

War came again to Europe in September 1939, and by late 1940 it was becoming increasingly apparent that the US would get drawn in, one way or another.[16] Total federal spending in 1939 was about $8 billion, of which around $1 billion (12%) came from personal income taxes. But with war looming, Morgenthau and friends knew that spending, and thus revenue, would need to dramatically increase. They had three options: personal income tax, corporate income tax, and war bonds. So they set to work; “in the realms of both taxation and bond sales, Jews played major roles,” writes Ginsberg.[17]

Special emphasis was placed on increasing personal income taxes, both by lowering the threshold for paying, and by increasing the tax rates. The effect was dramatic. The number of taxpaying adults increased from a very modest 1 million in 1939, to 5 million in 1941, to 40 million in 1942—at the time, constituting virtually all non-farm wage-earning adults. Corresponding revenues soared from $1 billion to $40 billion by the last years of the war. Revenue increases matched spending increases, as federal expenditures rose from $8 billion in 1940 to over $100 billion by 1945.

At the start of the war, however, the Treasury Jews knew that enforcement of new tax laws would be difficult. Millions of Americans who had never even considered the possibility of paying an income tax were suddenly asked to contribute thousands of dollars. What to do? Morgenthau’s boys devised a clever plan: “a number of Jewish economists [including Milton Friedman and Morgenthau himself] championed the introduction of payroll withholding, or ‘collection at the source,’ which to this day ensures a smooth, regular flow of billions of dollars into the federal government’s coffers”.[18] That is, the government would work with employers to extract the worker’s share of taxes prior to paying their wages. Corporations were much easier to coerce than unruly citizens, and rates could be arbitrarily raised in the future with little fuss. This tactic was a “central feature” of the 1943 Revenue Act, and would remain in effect for all future years. Thanks to payroll withholding, income tax evolved “from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans”.[19]

With this glorious new cash cow in place, the Treasury Jews—currently headed by Steven Mnuchin—never looked back. As a result, Americans today pay an astonishing $2.1 trillion in income and “payroll” (FICA, or social security plus Medicare) taxes, accounting for roughly 68% of all federal revenue. In other words, over two-thirds of the entire funding of our federal government comes directly out of citizens’ paychecks. This monumental burden is carried by 84% of all households, who pay either income tax, or payroll tax or, most likely, both. Most of the remaining 16% of households—representing about 50 million people—earn too little to pay any income tax at all.

And yet even this is not enough for our voracious feds. The $2.1 trillion is supplemented by some $760 billion in corporate taxes (income tax plus their share of payroll), and another $260 billion in excise and estate taxes. In sum, the government currently takes in about $3.3 trillion. But it spends around $4.1 trillion annually, mostly on defense and military-related costs, which approach a breath-taking $1.25 trillion per year.[20] The difference—an annual deficit of about $800 billion—is pushed onto future taxpayers, in the form of additions to the federal debt, which currently stands at nearly $22 trillion. We may be excused for holding the feds in contempt.

Return of the “3 Percent” Plan

So: What to do? Here’s one idea: Let’s return to the old “3 percent” rule—that is, that the entire income tax burden should again be borne by the richest 3% of households. It worked for the decades leading up to World War II, and it could work again. After all, we’re not at war—the last formally-declared war was in fact World War II—and apart from sporadic ‘terrorist’ actions, the world is generally at peace. In a peacetime economy, the wealthiest Americans should rightly bear the full cost of income taxation.

There are several ways to make this happen, but let me lay out one proposal here. Data exists to make a reasonably accurate set of calculations. Here are the numbers:

At present, we have about 160 million tax households in the US, representing our 325 million people. The top one percent—that is, the richest 1.6 million households—earn an average of about $880,000 per year.[21] The second-richest one percent earn around $400,000 on average, and the 3^rd one-percent about $325,000. Altogether, our top 3% are paid about $2.6 trillion every year.

The problem, however, is that we need to raise $2.1 trillion in taxes from these folks. The simplest way would be to tax them at a flat rate of 80%. Imagine: you earn a hefty $1 million per year from your vulture capitalist hedge fund, and you have to pay $800,000 to the feds. Hard to make those yacht payments on just $200,000 a year.

Cruel, you say? Perhaps. Fortunately, we have an alternative. It turns out, unsurprisingly, that most of our top 3-percenters (in terms of income) are also millionaires or billionaires (in terms of assets). They have real assets—assets that can be taxed. Each household in the top one-percent, in fact, owns an average of $22 million in assets—mostly in property, stocks and bonds, and corporate equity. The second percentile household owns some $7.5 million, on average; the 3^rd percentile, $5 million. In total, this group of individuals owns or controls about $56 trillion in assets—an utterly incredible sum, to say the least.

Here then is my proposal: tax the upper 3-percenters income at a flat rate of 60%; this will raise about $1.5 trillion annually. Then let’s also impose a mere 1% wealth tax on their assets, which will raise another $560 billion. In sum, we get nearly exactly the desired total of $2.1 trillion. Our richest people have fully funded the federal government. And the remaining 97% of us—around 315 million people—get to keep all of our hard-earned income. Imagine that.

And who, exactly, are these poor buggers who are about to personally fund the federal government? We know the big names: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers. But they are just the tip of the iceberg. When we run down the list of leading names, we find a striking fact: around half of them are Jews. Among the top ten, we find five Jews: Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Michael Bloomberg. Of the top 50, at least 27 are Jews, including Sheldon Adelson, Steve Ballmer, Michael Dell, Carl Icahn, David Newhouse, Micki Arison, and Stephen Ross.[22] More broadly, we can cite once again Benjamin Ginsberg, who wrote, “Today, though barely 2% of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews”.[23]

Based on such data, we can infer that up to half of the top 3-percenters are Jews.[24] As a whole, they therefore own or control up to $28 trillion in assets. On my proposal, they will correspondingly pay half of the annual $2.1 trillion to keep our government afloat, and to fight foreign wars on their behalf. As the prime beneficiaries of American economic policy, this is only fair.

At a minimum, some such proposal deserves wider discussion, given that it offers massive financial benefit to fully 97% of the nation. By rights, something like this should be discussed in every political debate and on every nighttime news program. The closest thing we have to this is Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax proposal: 2% on assets between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3% on assets over $1 billion. By my estimates, this would apply only to the top 0.1% of households (versus my 3%), and would only bring in, she says, around $275 billion annually (versus my $560 billion). It’s weak, but at least a step in the right direction. And yet her proposal got almost no discussion, and virtually no endorsement. This is unsurprising, given that our media bosses include multi-millionaire Jews like Bob Iger and Ben Sherwood at Disney/ABC, David Levy and Jeff Zucker at Warner/CNN, Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC, and Sumner and Shari Redstone at Viacom/CBS. They certainly have no interest in any wealth tax, as it would hit them directly in the pocketbook. By definition, if it’s bad for them, it’s bad, period.

Still, such a tax system, disproportionately falling on American Jews, would have vast implications. Think of it: A $1 trillion annual contribution from the American Jewish community, in order to provide for the health and security of all Americans. It would go a long way toward burnishing their long-besmirched image, and lessening anti-Jewish hostility. By draining away some of their excessive wealth, it would reduce their ability to meddle in government and the corporate world. It would be a boon to the US economy, lifting millions out of poverty and allowing millions more to get out from under crushing debt. It would serve as a measure of true economic justice. And it would allow for an honest, transparent, fair, and just system of taxation.

But don’t hold your breath.

[1] Federal spending is now about $4.1 trillion, which is roughly 21% of our current GDP of $21 trillion. More on this below.

[2] See, for example, the work of Bill Benson and his book The Law That Never Was (www.thelawthatneverwas.com).

[3] Also known as the ‘Underwood Tariff’ or the ‘Underwood-Simmons Act.’

[4] To say that Stolypin was no friend of the Jews is an understatement. He once wrote: “It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures who cannot enter into our concept of human nature” (in A. Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews, 1994, p. 6).

[5] News reports of these events, especially in the New York Times, consistently referred to “6 million” suffering Jews—but that’s a story for another time. See my book Debating the Holocaust (4^th ed. 2020, pp. 53-64).

[6] In S. Singer, “President Taft and the Jews” (The Jewish Press, 23 Dec 2015). Sazonov served from 1910 to 1916.

[7] N. Cohen, 1963, “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832,” Jewish Social Studies 25(1).

[8] Prelude to Catastrophe (2010; Ivan Dee), p. 22.

[9] Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).

[10] For a fuller treatment of this incident and its implications, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019).

[11] The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982; Transaction), p. 44.

[12] Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute it to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself.

[13] How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013; Rowman), p. 57.

[14] The New Deal and Antisemitism in America (1990; Taylor and Francis), p. 193.

[15] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[16] Again, as with WW1, there was a prominent Jewish role in our entry into the war; see Dalton (2019)—supra note 10.

[17] Ginsberg, p. 56.

[18] Ginsberg, p. 57.

[19] Ginsberg, p. 59.

[20] Total annual military-related spending includes several categories, far beyond simply the Dept of Defense. In 2019, it was reported that total military-related spending exceeded $1 trillion. This includes: base DOD budget ($550 billion), “war” budget, aka OCO ($174 billion), DOE and nuclear spending ($25 billion), FBI defense-related ($9 billion), Veterans Affairs ($216 billion), Homeland Security ($69 billion), international affairs and foreign military aid (mostly to Israel) ($51 billion), military intelligence, CIA, and NSA ($80 billion), and lastly, defense-related share of the national debt ($156 billion)—for a total cost of $1.25 trillion. For details, see “America’s defense budget is bigger than you think,” http://www.thenation.com (7 May 2019).

[21] Howard Gold, “Never mind the 1 percent, let’s talk about the 0.01 percent”, 2017 (https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/never-mind-1-percent-lets-talk-about-001-percent).

[22] Bloomberg Billionaires Index (2018).

[23] The Fatal Embrace (1993; Univ of Chicago Press), p. 1.

[24] For details, see my TOO article “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (7 Feb 2019).

April 13, 2020 Posted by aletho | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | United States | Leave a comment

COVID-19: Fallout From a Navy Captain’s Heroism: The Possible Emergence of a New Idea of ‘National Security’

By Gareth Porter | Consortium News | April 13, 2020

The United States is experiencing an upheaval from the Coronavirus pandemic that is deeper than anything in modern American history, and military and civilian Pentagon elites have responded to it in a way that seems certain to further magnify the broader corrosive impact of the crisis on their enormous power.

It has further widened the existing socio-political seam between those elites and their servicemen and women who have faced threat to their health not only from pandemic itself but from the decisions made by military bureaucrats directly affecting their safety.

That is the larger significance of the dramatic recent events involving Captain Brett Crozier, the crew of USS Theodore Roosevelt and the hapless, now-cashiered Navy Secretary Thomas Modly.

Modly had made the most embarrassing public appearance of a senior official in recent history on board the stricken aircraft carrier after having relieved Captain Crozier, who had received an unprecedented standing ovation from his crew as he walked to shore. Modly not only attacked Crozier, suggesting he was “stupid” to circulate his letter urging immediate action to evacuate sailors from the ship but was condescending to the crew as well.

Modly’s rambling and profanity-laced talk to the crew clearly conveyed the official view that they had no business cheering their Captain, who had stood up for their interests, because he had embarrassed the “chain of command.”

Modly thus dramatically illustrated the wide gulf that separates military and civilian Pentagon elites from the lives of U.S. servicemen and women. The interests of the senior military and civilian officials in the Pentagon have always focused primarily on their missions and capabilities, which are the tokens of their power and prestige.

The health of soldiers and sailors has inevitably emerged as a secondary consideration, despite official protestations to the contrary. That much is clear from a review of the press briefing given by Modly and Chief of Naval Operation Admiral Michael Gilday on March 24, after the first three cases of Covid-19 had been identified on the Theodore Roosevelt.

Gilday revealed in the briefing that the Navy was only testing when there was evidence of symptoms and not for all sailors on board the ship.

The Navy Surgeon General Rear Admiral Bruce Gillingham further explained the Navy was doing “surveillance testing,” which he described as “cross section” testing, to “give us an idea”, rather than testing all the sailors on board. When another reporter asked how concerned the Navy was about a new cluster of cases emerging onboard, Gillnghham didn’t address that question and instead answered another question the reporter had posed.

Even more revealing of the Navy’s priorities, however, were the responses to a journalist’s observation that the Navy did not appear to have a coherent position guiding commanders in regard to maintaining social distance onboard. Modly said it was “almost impossible to try to micromanage these types of decisions,” and Gilday added, “We really do trust the judgment of our commanders, and so we’re giving them authority to do what they think they need to do to remain on mission and take care of people.”

USS Nimitz Also Threatened

Commanding officers could hardly have missed the clear implication that they were to “remain on mission” and do the best they could to deal with the risk of a Covid-19 outbreak that would inevitably be significant. By the time of that press briefing, of course, the virus was already spreading rapidly on the Theodore Roosevelt, and within days, it was a severe emergency demanding radical action.

The full story of what happened during those crucial days is still untold, but Captain Crozier obviously met resistance from the “chain of command” to his call for immediate evacuation of a very large number of the 4,000 sailors from the ship, leaving behind about 1,000 to maintain the nuclear reactors and the billions of dollars of weapons onboard.

The same pattern of Navy treatment of the problem is evident in the case of the USS Nimitz, which is still at its base in Bremerton, Washington. It has had two positive diagnoses, including one sailor who had taken sick while on leave. Fifteen more sailors who had been in contact with him had been taken off the ship and quarantined, but those remaining on board have not been tested for Covid-19, according to the father of a new member who has stayed in close contact with his son. The father reported last week that the screening included asking some, but not all crew members whether they felt ill.

The father told a reporter that he “feels like they’re not taking it seriously.” The Nimitz is preparing for sea trials this month that will last for weeks, and the Navy the Pentagon are obviously eager to have it proceed without delay. The responses of Vice-Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff Gen. John Hyten and Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist, at an April 8 press briefing, revealed unintentionally the way the Pentagon elite prioritizes its institutional interests over the military personnel facing the Covid-19 threat.

More than one journalist asked how the Pentagon was planning to adjust its operational tempo to take account of outbreaks like the one on the Theodore Roosevelt in the coming coming months. But Hyten and Norquist refused to acknowledge any such necessity. When one journalist asked how the Theodore Roosevelt could participate in combat if 10 percent of its crew were found to be positive for Covid-19, Norquist incredibly suggested the Navy could take it in stride, explaining, “[A] significant percentage for the military are asymptomatic. Others have mild flu-like symptoms, the sort of things that our fleet is normally used to dealing with.”

Reckoning Awaiting

Captain Crozier’s four-page letter, which had elicited the wrath of those Pentagon and Navy bureaucrats, challenged their deeply engrained habit of pursuing those institutional interests to demonstrate the super power of the U.S. military, while giving minimal weight to the costs imposed on ordinary soldiers and sailors.

“We are not at war,” Crozier had observed. “Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors.”

Taking Crozier down looked like a safe bet for opportunists like Modly, Norquist and Hyten, especially since Donald Trump had publicly scolded Crozier for sending the letter. But the political tide had already shifted against them, as Crozier emerged as a national hero for his defense of the interests of sailors against the wishes of the bureaucrats.

And more important, as Americans begin to come to grips with the enormity of the socio-economic catatrasophe caused by a global pandemic for which the United States government was totally unprepared, a reckoning seems inevitable for the political-military institutions represented by these officials.

Retired Army Gen. David Barno, who was head of the combined forces command in Afghanistan 2003-05 and Defense policy analyst Nora Bensahel, have predicted that Americans will not look at “national security” in the same way again. Instead, Barno and Bensahel write that Americans will “conclude that the country has gotten the very idea of security wrong.”

They wrote:

“Americans will look at national security differently than they did before and may no longer be willing – or even able – to give the Department of Defense almost three-quarters of a trillion taxpayer dollars each year to defend against foreign threats.

Americans will look at the biggest single discretionary spending line in the government’s budget and conclude that the country has gotten the very idea of security fundamentally wrong. They will realize that this massive loss of life was inflicted not by a terrorist attack or rampaging enemy armies, but by an unseen and amorphous health threat. And they will recognize that despite spending more than $700 billion each year on the Department of Defense, the Pentagon’s focus on external threats meant that it played only a very small role in protecting the nation against this deadly and life-changing threat, and in responding once it began to spill across the nation.”

A poll taken in February found that 31 percent of those surveyed thought that the United States was spending too much on defense. But that number will likely rise after the pandemic ends as Americans start to ask: How well did all that defense spending protect us? Many are likely to conclude that domestic threats and global health issues imperil their personal security and the American way of life far more than any looming foreign adversary. They may emerge from this crisis with radically different spending priorities (as discussed below) that will pressure the defense budget even further downward.”

The utter failure of the Pentagon bureaucracy to take care of its own soldiers and sailors in the face of the pandemic should combine with this broader shift in political attitudes and priorities to present the biggest threat to the power of the military-industrial-congressional complex in its entire history.

Out of the havoc and ruin of this disaster should emerge the first real opportunity for a popular movement to end the dominance of that complex over American politics, policy and resources once and for all.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. His latest book, with John Kiriakou, is “The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis: From CIA Coup to the Brink of War.”

April 13, 2020 Posted by aletho | Militarism, Supremacism, Social Darwinism | United States | Leave a comment

Meet The Companies Poised To Build The Kushner-Backed “Coronavirus Surveillance System”

By Whitney Webb | The Last American Vagabond | April 11, 2020

The three companies behind the leading proposal to build a “national coronavirus surveillance system”, an initiative spearheaded by Jared Kushner, boast deep ties to Google, intelligence-linked venture capital firms as well as one of last year’s eerily predictive “pandemic” simulations.

On April 7, Politico reported that the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was spearheading an all-private sector taskforce that aims to build a “national coronavirus surveillance system” in order to “give the government a near real-time view of where patients are seeking treatment and for what.”

This proposed nationwide network, according to that report, would be used to better inform government decision-making regarding which parts of the United States may “safely relax social-distancing rules” and those that may not. Politico treaded lightly in its discussion of such a system’s likely effects on civil liberties, but did note that some critics have compared this proposed system “to the Patriot act enacted after the 9/11 attacks.”

According to Politico, three companies collectively sent out a memo on March 22 to three administration officials – Jared Kushner, Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Alex Azar. The memo was “widely circulated” throughout the administration relative to other submitted proposals. Those companies – Collective Medical, PatientPing and Juvare – asserted in the memo that they could collectively “supply the government with information on where and how many patients are seeking care across 80 percent of the U.S. ‘in short order.’”

Two of those companies, Collective Medical Technologies and PatientPing, declined to comment on the memo and its contents. A representative from Juvare, however, stated that the company has “spoken with officials across several federal agencies including FEMA, HHS and the CDC about its various emergency preparedness and data tools.”

Though the article downplayed the privacy concerns such a system would create, it failed to note the direct and troubling ties of these three companies, not only to Silicon Valley giants with dubious records regarding data privacy and coordination with U.S. intelligence agencies, but also ties to controversial simulations that took place last year and seemingly predicted the current coronavirus crisis.

Collective Medical Technologies

Utah-based Collective Medical Technologies is currently the nation’s largest “healthcare collaboration network” and was recently described by Forbes as having “conquered emergency rooms on a bootstrap.” Its current CEO, Chris Klomp, worked at the Mitt Romney-founded Bain Capital, whose alumni also include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and current CEO of Google’s YouTube, Susan Wojicki.

One of Collective Medical’s largest investors is the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, which poured $47.5 million into the company in 2017. Kleiner Perkins, an early investor in both Google and Amazon, counts former Secretary of State Colin Powell among its “strategic advisors” and has managed a $200 million “pandemic and biodefense fund” since 2006 that has been coordinated in part with the World Health Organization. That same year, Dr. Thomas Monmath, former chief of the Fort Detrick bioweapon lab’s Virology Division and former senior science advisor to the CIA, also joined Kleiner Perkins to help “advance innovation” in relation to this specific fund. Dr. Monmath is also a former executive at an Emergent Biosolutions subsidiary.

Kleiner Perkin’s pandemic fund has heavily invested in companies that compose the Emergent Biosolutions-run Alliance for Biosecurity, such as BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, as well as NovaVax, which recently entered into a major partnership with Emergent Biosolutions to produce a coronavirus vaccine. Emergent Biosolutions, one of the most scandal ridden vaccine companies in the country with deep ties to the U.S. government and the Pentagon, is the subject of an investigation recently published by The Last American Vagabond.

PatientPing

Boston-based PatientPing is another company in this private sector triad lobbying to form a new national “health” surveillance system in the name of combatting the coronavirus epidemic. Founded by Jay Desai and David Berkowicz, PatientPing is a technology company focused on information-sharing in order to create a “healthcare collaboration network.” The company’s first lead investor was Google Ventures, often referred to in press releases and media reports simply as “GV.” Dr. Krishna Yeshwant of Google Ventures sits on PatientPing’s board and he also led GV’s investment in Editas Medicine, the CRISPR gene-editing start-up backed by Bill Gates and his former scientific advisor Boris Nikolic.

As its name suggests, GV is the venture capital arm of Google and over a third of its investments are in the “life sciences.” It frequently co-invests in companies with In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital firm. The cooperation is hardly surprising if one is aware of Google’s history, as the technology behemoth was a beneficiary of In-Q-Tel funding in its early days.

Google’s use (or rather misuse) of private data is well-known and they have recently been in the news in relation to the coronavirus after giving the government broad access to the private location data of Android smartphone users to allegedly help track the virus’ spread. GV’s association with In-Q-Tel and their interest in a company like PatientPing is notable given that In-Q-Tel, particularly In-Q-Tel’s current Executive Vice President Tara O’Toole, has long promoted mass surveillance programs that utilize healthcare IT services just like those offered by PatientPing and Collective Medical Technologies. O’Toole is a key and recurrent figure in The Last American Vagabond’s “Engineering Contagion” series.

PatientPing’s other lead investor is the venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz. Andreesen Horowitz is advised by former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, an associate of pedophile and intelligence asset Jeffery Epstein as well as billionaire Bill Gates. This same venture capital firm is also one of the lead investors in Toka, an Israeli intelligence-linked “start-up” founded by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who was also a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Toka describes its product portfolio as “empower[ing] governments, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies to enhance Homeland Security with groundbreaking cyber-intelligence and operational capabilities” by allowing government’s covert access to consumer electronic devices. Two members of Andreesen Horowitz, Jeff Jordan and Vijay Pande, sit on PatientPing’s board.

Juvare

The last of the three companies poised to build a national coronavirus surveillance system is the emergency management software company Juvare. One of their key products is called EMTrack, which – according to Juvare’s website – provides its clients the ability to track “patients, people, pets and populations throughout any kind of event.” Its software, in general, relies heavily on Google-made or owned software.

Juvare boasts that its products have been used by the government to coordinate responses to mass shootings, such as the Las Vegas and Pulse Nightclub shootings, and past pandemic scares such as Swine Flu (H1N1), Bird Flu, Ebola and SARS. Juvare’s software products are used by 80% of state public health agencies and over 50 different U.S. federal agencies – including the FBI, the State Department and Homeland Security. It is also a contractor for the U.S. military. In Mid-March, it released a “free” software add-on for existing clients in government to track coronavirus cases including “presumptive cases” as well as the number of those under “mandatory and voluntary” quarantines.

Juvare was a notable private sector participant in the series of “Crimson Contagion” simulations that were conducted last year by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Crimson Contagion, overseen and designed by HHS Assistance Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) Robert Kadlec (also a key player in the “Engineering Contagion” series), simulated the U.S. government’s response to a massive viral pandemic four times between last January and August. Those simulations involved both large and small-scale exercises that brought together 19 different federal agencies, 12 states and several private companies. One focus of those simulations, which preceded the coronavirus crisis by a matter of months, was the use of the surveillance in order to better enforce “social distancing” among Americans.

Here to help?

Though these private companies – as noted by Politico – are now offering their services of “surveillance” to the U.S. government “for free,” it is difficult to believe that their offer is altruistic in nature given their ties to companies and organizations that have long lobbied for or actively participated in mass surveillance for years, long before the current coronavirus came to dominate headlines and the public consciousness.

Much like the Patriot Act after 9/11, the current pandemic crisis is being used to expand mass surveillance programs, programs that are unlikely to end after the pandemic fades. To the contrary, if history is any indicator, such sweeping new surveillance systems will instead be further expanded.

It is also worth pointing out the significance of Jared Kushner’s involvement in leading this effort, as his wife Ivanka Trump – the President’s daughter – was one of the leading proponents of a controversial program last year called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA). HARPA seeks to create a new government “health” agency aimed at stopping mass shootings before they occur. This agency’s main program, called “Safe Home” (Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes), aims to develop an artificial intelligence-based system that would analyze data harvested from consumer electronic devices as well as information provided by health-care providers to identify those who might threaten others.

Though HARPA ultimately failed to gain traction, a similarly Orwellian mass surveillance system is now being promoted in its place, with coronavirus now replacing mass shootings as the official justification. The superficial re-branding of this new, far-reaching mass surveillance system aims to justify its imposition by framing it as a solution to whatever is currently inspiring the most fear among Americans, with the hope that something sticks. These transparent attempts to gain public consent for further expansion of unconstitutional surveillance strongly suggests that such a system is aimed at expanding authoritarianism and further reducing American civil liberties and has little to do with protecting “public health” and assisting the country’s response to coronavirus.

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | Google, Human rights, United States | Leave a comment

New Document Reveals How Jews Manufactured Corbyn “Anti-Semitism” Hysteria In Quest for Power

By Eric Striker – National Justice – April 12, 2020

UK Labour’s election of Keir Starmer, a self-described Zionist with close familial ties to Jewry, is a drastic establishment repudiation of Corbynism.

The elements of the Judeo-Left who did everything in their power to betray their own party and cause Jeremy Corbyn to lose through their bully pulpits at publications like The Guardian are licking their lips at the certain prospect of a sweeping party purge of those labeled “anti-Semitic.” The goal is to solidify Jewish control over a party Jews abandoned in the 1970s and 80s for the Tories, but still distrust.

A gargantuan internal party dossier detailing the conspiracy to undermine and destroy Corbyn goes back to 2016, with the founding of a group called “Labour Against Anti-Semitism” (LAAS). The LAAS uses the “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” definition of anti-Semitism, which includes any and all criticism of Israel, once again demonstrating the power of the pernicious myth to give moral leverage to immoral causes like non-stop global war and ethnic cleansing.

LAAS is led by a figure named Euan Philipps, who is described in the investigation (pg 401) as being rude and insulting as he filed loads of discrimination complaints described by staff as “spurious.” Some discourse that Philipps reported as anti-Semitic included party members attacking Blairites (fans of the Zionist warmonger Tony Blair), expressing support for George Galloway (a veteran radical who in recent years has bucked his party to become pro-Brexit, criticize Zionism and push back against anti-white sentiment), criticizing finance-capitalism, and of course, criticism of Israel of any kind.

The large number of anti-Semitism complaints, despite being non-sense, were reported uncritically in British media. This put pressure on Corbyn to purge some of his most fervent supporters and cause infighting as the party campaigned for election.

According to the report, in 2019 half of all “anti-Semitism” complaints came from one person (pg 843). The investigation remarks that none of the claims had any evidence, and were largely just people expressing non-racial political views Jews don’t like. Thanks to the political correctness of the left-wing organization, the powerful and connected Jews in question sought to sow division and waste resources by causing Labour hierarchs to “investigate” and sometimes suspend opponents of Zionism or neo-liberalism. After a while, some involved in the “Dignity at Work” anti-harassment program realized it was a subversive strategy and began to take these complaints less seriously.

Corbyn’s supporters, rather than simply booting all the interlopers, decided upon the limp strategy of calling the other side anti-Semitic for assuming all Jews support Israel (95% of American Jews — among the most “liberal” — support Israel) or going out of their way to prove innocence while being barraged by thunderstriking calumnies. The problem is that the “controversy” was always in bad faith and specifically a rejection of some of Corbyn’s views on economics and foreign policy.

One of the most shocking vignettes from the Jewish conspiracy against Corbyn was when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with British Jews at a secret meeting and promised American intervention in the immediate aftermath of a Corbyn victory. What this intervention would’ve looked like is left up to our imagination as Boris Johnson won in a landslide in December 2019.

Corbyn’s experience is by no means exclusive to the left. Right-wing groups are also subjected to similar strategies by Jews who seek to weaken their ability to advance the interests of their voters.

Jews have utilized similar tactics to cause internal havoc and trigger purges in conservative-populist parties like Alternativ Fur Deutschland (AfD), Vox, and of course the famous “de-demonization” of Front National.

William F. Buckley’s draconian crackdown at the behest of Norman Podhoretz completely neutered the American right. This was so effective that only recently has it started to recover, and even that’s up for debate.

Any organization that expresses a strong and principled alternative to the plutocratic status quo, never-ending wars, globalization or mass immigration will be labeled anti-Semitic by Jews, whether that is their intent or not.

Jewish elites see political consensus on these issues as vital to retaining dominance in Western nations. Whether left or right, those who present opposition to these policies will be dragged into an open confrontation with Jewish power, which usually ends in the target getting in the fetal position and enduring a beat down.

The question going forward is: who is willing to fight back?

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | UK, Zionism | 1 Comment

Just Close The Airports And Allow Us Some Sun: Vitamin D Fights COVID-19 Better Than UK Government

By Neil Clark – Sputnik – April 9, 2020

Irish academic research has shown that Vitamin D, which we get from sunlight, can boost resistance to respiratory infection, including coronavirus, yet the UK government isn’t listening and instead warns us all to stay indoors.

Summer seems to have arrived early in Britain. It’s forecast to be 24 degrees Celsius on Saturday in some parts, with lovely sunny weather and warm temperatures returning in the second half of next week.

Not that most Brits will be able to enjoy it. We’re in ‘lockdown’ and only supposed to go outdoors for a very small number of reasons. Sunbathing, as the police and government have both made very clear, is not one of them. A video was doing the rounds on Sunday showing cops in a patrol van telling people not to sunbathe in Peckham Rye Park in London.

Of course, gatherings of more than two people need to be dispersed. But even someone sunbathing on their own, properly socially distanced from the next person, could end up getting into trouble. This is nonsensical. So long as social distancing rules are observed, sunbathing can actually do us a lot of good in our current situation.

The stronger our immune systems, the better our protection against the coronavirus. Vitamin D is crucial as the Irish research, from Trinity College Dublin, shows. At the end of a long winter our Vitamin D levels are usually very depleted- meaning of course we are more likely to be susceptible to infections.

Dr Eamon Laird, co-author of the report, says: ‘‘These findings show our older adults have high levels of vitamin D deficiency which could have a significant negative impact on their immune response to infection. There is an even larger risk now of deficiency with those cocooning or confined indoors.’

There hasn’t to my knowledge been a study this year in the UK on the same subject, but it’s reasonable to assume that with similar weather to Ireland, British citizens, at the end of a gloomy, mild and very wet winter will have the same deficiencies.

Sunlight can remedy that. As the report’s summary says: ‘Vitamin D is produced in the skin by exposing the body to just 10-15 minutes per day of sun.’ Not only that, sunlight increases the brain’s release of the hormone serotonin, making it a natural anti-depressant. Vast amounts are spent on anti-depressant drugs, but the best medicine for this condition is out there, available for free, in front of our eyes.

No one is talking here about denying the need for social distancing to mitigate Covid19’s spread, but surely, given the clear benefits of sunshine in improving physical and mental health, the UK government ought to be taking be a more nuanced approach?

Instead of introducing staggered time slots for different ages to go to them, parks and open spaces are being closed. A lot of Brits who don’t have a garden, are going to be spending the next seven days cooped up inside, when- provided they keep their distance- it would be better for their health if they spent some time soaking up some sun-rays. Rather than take on board the Irish research, the UK government seems to be going in the other direction. On Sunday Health Secretary Matt Hancock warned that exercise out of the home ‘could be banned’- meaning we wouldn’t even be able to go out for a bike ride up and down the road. Yes, the Chopper could be in for the chop.

How extraordinary would that be when one considers that flights from Covid-19 hotspots have been coming in to the country unchecked! Professor Neil Ferguson of ICL has said that Covid-19 has been ‘seeded’ around the UK by people arriving into the country by plane. You could say that was ‘stating the bleedin’ obvious’, but according to reports the Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty thought there was no evidence banning flights would stop the spread of a global pandemic … that has been spread by people travelling from one country to another!

The failure to close our airports- and introduce proper quarantine measures at all ports of entry- is likely to cost thousands of lives. Yet it’s sunbathing on your own that is deemed a bigger problem.

The UK government’s policy can be likened to a householder who faced with a flood, turns the kitchen tap off but leaves the one in the bathroom running. The sensible thing to do of course is to turn off the stopcock so no more water can come in. But throughout the crisis Johnson’s crew have been anything but sensible. The flip-flopping has been extraordinary.

On 5th March, Boris Johnson said on television: ‘People can see the country is going to get through this in good shape’. The Daily Express reported that ‘He (Johnson) repeated his insistence that he will not give up shaking hands because of the outbreak. He shook hands with presenters on arriving on the set and later did the same thing with Maltese President George Vella’. The PM, the Express said, emphasised that the risks from the virus were small- and that measures such as closing schools and cancelling sports events and other big public gatherings were unlikely.

Yet just a week later, on 12th March, Johnson was warning that Coronavirus was the ‘worst public health crisis for a generation’ and declared: ‘I must level with you- many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time’.

We went from Bouncing Boris to Grim Reaper Boris in just seven days.

But there were still no restrictions on movement announced until Monday 23rd March, which was much too late. Even then, as mentioned earlier, the flights from hotspots still were allowed to come in unchecked. On 27th March, the man who wouldn’t stop shaking hands announced that he had tested positive for the virus. Quelle surprise, you might say. (Boris Johnson is currently spending his fifth day in hospital and of course one wishes him well).

While there have been plenty of warnings to ‘stay at home’ to protect the NHS, what we haven’t received yet is any practical information from government on how to build up our immune systems to make us less susceptible to infection. For all the six figure salaried officials at Public Health England today, it seems we got better advice back in the 1940s. Anyone remember Lord Woolton and the Ministry of Food?

Cod liver oil- a rich source of Vitamins A and D, was given free to children, pregnant mums and nurses in the 1940s and 50s, but to my knowledge not one UK government minister or public health official has talked of its benefits in recent weeks, or even mentioned the words ‘Immune Boosting Vitamins’ or ‘Immune Boosting Food’.

The official line has gone from a glib ‘you’ve nothing to worry about, carrying on going out and about and to large events and shaking hands’ to ‘this is the worst public health crisis for a generation, many families will lose loved ones before their time’, with nothing much in between. By not stopping people ‘seeding’ the virus from incoming flights, it’s clear that the government, for all its draconian talk about enforcing a ‘lockdown’ hasn’t abandoned ‘herd immunity’. The most plausible explanation I’ve seen of the seemingly contradictory policy, came from Julian Symes on Twitter who described it as ‘Herd Immunity accelerate/break’.

The government wants the virus to spread as quickly as possible, but subject to the NHS’s ability to cope. So flights can still come in unchecked, but we have distancing measures too. That can also explain why they haven’t been extolling the benefits of Vitamin D- or working out a scheme which combines the maintenance of distancing measures with an acknowledgement of the health-boosting effect of sunshine.

When one factors in the failure to plan or prepare in any meaningful way for the pandemic, which means that some NHS staff are going into front-line battle with just bin bags for protection, then we can say that the government’s handling of the Coronavirus crisis has been ‘Fail’ an epic way. So it’s no surprise that they’d rather blame us- the public -for simply wanting to do what comes naturally at the end of a long winter.

Support Neil Clark’s Libel and Legal Enforcement Fund

Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Civil Liberties, Deception | UK | 21 Comments

The Arrogance of Zionist Power: Openly Demonstrating that the Tribe Always Comes First

Image credit: Democratic Majority for Israel/ Facebook

By Philip Giraldi | American Herald Tribune | April 12, 2020

There are two recent stories that involve the arrogance of the Jewish community in the United States. The first involves a lobbying group in Washington and the second concerns a hospital in New York City. It has often been observed that some Jews of the Alan Dershowitz persuasion boast about how powerful Jews are in the U.S. When challenged, they would argue that the Judaization of American culture and politics has been a good thing, bringing with it liberal values that have particularly benefited other minority groups in particular. What is not discussed much is the quid pro quo, whereby Jews reward themselves for their goodness by allocating to the tribe top positions in high profile and richly remunerated professions where they are hugely over-represented.

Much of the Jewish self-congratulation takes place behind the scenes, at events that are for Jews only or in discussions inside the Jewish media, but of late the empowering of Zionist and Jewish interests by President Donald Trump and the success in shutting down criticism of Israel has served to embolden those who like to boast of the tribe’s accomplishments. The latest bit of bragging rights in respect to Jewish power in the U.S. belongs to a group called the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI). The DMFI is a registered political action committee (PAC) that lobbies on behalf of the Jewish state. It was organized in 2019 by Democratic Party activists to counter what was perceived to be pro-Palestinian sentiment within the party’s progressive wing.

In 2016 the Democratic Party dodged the bullet on Israel by a cheap maneuver which included not permitting a floor vote on a proposed platform plank that would have expressed support for Palestinian statehood. Opinion polls do indeed suggest that half of Democrats who are aware of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement approve of it. Criminalizing BDS has been a principal target of Jewish groups in the U.S., to include both AIPAC and DMFI.

The DMFI has particularly chosen to go after Senator Bernie Sanders who, more than anyone running for the nomination to run for president, has emphasized the suffering of the Palestinians and has suggested withholding money from Israel until its behavior improves. On the morning after Sanders withdrew from the race DMFI president Mark Mellman sent out an email to supporters expressing his pleasure over the result. He also took some credit for the outcome “Bernie Sanders suspended his campaign for president. That’s a big victory — one you helped bring about.”

Mellman also reminded his associates that the victory was only a first step in making sure that the Democratic Party platform continues to be pro-Israel, writing that “Extreme groups aligned with Sanders, as well as some of his top surrogates — including Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar — have publicly declared an effort to make the platform anti-Israel. As a career political professional, I will tell you that if Democrats adopt an anti-Israel platform this year, the vocabulary, views, and votes of politicians will shift against us dramatically. We simply can’t afford to lose this battle.”

The destruction of Bernie Sanders by the Democratic Party establishment, to include DMFI, is eerily reminiscent of what was done to Jeremy Corbyn by similar pro-Israel groups in Britain. Mellman in effect admits that he has interfered with the electoral process of the Democratic Party on behalf of a foreign government, but no one is disturbed by it. That he is actively engaged in politicking from inside the Democratic tent to destroy one candidate purely because he is mistrusted by a foreign government appears to bother no one in the mainstream media, nor on the Democratic National Committee. Nor has the Treasury Department required Mellman to register under the terms of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) of 1938. In fact, no pro-Israel organization has ever been required to register under FARA in spite of the fact that they are clearly visible and quite open in their advocacy.

The other story is somewhat more bizarre and it involves Jews in Brooklyn receiving priority treatment at a taxpayer funded hospital. Maimonides Medical Center is Brooklyn’s largest hospital, and, in spite of the name, it is non-sectarian. Brooklyn is one of the epicenters of coronavirus and many of the patients are Hasidic Jews who refuse to comply with the government orders to stay at home and not attend large gatherings. A number of recent weddings and other celebrations have been attended by hundreds of people in New York and New Jersey, leading to sharp jumps in positive tests among the participants as well as among other local residents. According to Deborah Lipstadt, Jews are unwilling to forego large gatherings that endanger them and the people around them due to the “Holocaust.”

Hatzalah ambulances in New York. Credit: Chris Sampson/ Flickr

New York City has an ultra-orthodox Jewish volunteer ambulance service called Hatzalah which is in part taxpayer funded and was founded due to “cultural differences” between extreme orthodox Jews and gentiles. Hatzalah has somehow managed to obtain 50 ventilators, which are used in the extreme cases of coronavirus to assist the patient’s breathing. It is projected that ventilators will be in short supply as the number of sick patients increases.

At Maimonides, Hatzalah has given the ventilators to the hospital but only under the condition that Jews will get first access to them. In cases where an elderly Jewish patient is dying and a gentile child might be able to recover using a ventilator, the Jew has to be allowed to retain his ventilator until he dies.

Jewish power is the real deal in the United States. It is well known in political circles that Israel interferes in U.S. politics more than any other country, though it is not considered safe to mention that fact if one is running for office. And it is also true that American Jewish organizations are active in that process, in this case working to eliminate a candidate for office solely because his views on Israel are considered to be suspect. And if you should happen to live in Brooklyn and become ill enough with coronavirus to need a ventilator, pray you don’t wind up in Maimonides Medical Center. Ventilators are Jewish-only.

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | DMFI, United States, Zionism | 5 Comments

Vaccines and the Liberal Mind

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Common Dreams | June 12, 2018

Late last year, Slate published an investigative report detailing how pharmaceutical giant, Merck, used “flawed” and “unreliable” pre-licensing safety studies to push through approval of its multi-billion-dollar bonanza, the HPV vaccine. For veteran safe vaccine advocates, like myself, the most shocking aspect of the expose was that Slate published it at all. Slate and other liberal online publications including Salon, Huffington Post and The Daily Beast customarily block articles that critique vaccine safety in order, they argue, to encourage vaccination and protect public health.

Motivated by this noble purpose, the liberal media—the supposed antidote to corporate and government power—has helped insulate from scrutiny the burgeoning vaccine industry and its two regulators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both agencies have pervasive and potentially corrupting financial entanglements with the vaccine manufacturers, according to extensive congressional investigations.

Ironically, liberals routinely lambaste Pharma, and its FDA enablers for putting profits over people. Recent examples include Vioxx (100,000 injured—Merck paid more than $5 billion in fines and settlements), Abilify (Bristol Meyers Squibb paid $515 million for marketing the drug to nursing homes, knowing it can be fatal to seniors), Celebrex and Bextra (Pfizer paid $894 million for bribing public officials and false advertising about safety and effectiveness) and, of course, the opioid crisis, which in 2016 killed more Americans than the 20-year Vietnam War. What then, makes liberals think that these same companies are immune from similar temptations when it comes to vaccines? There is plenty of evidence that they are not. Merck, the world’s largest vaccine maker, is currently fighting multiple lawsuits, brought by its own scientists, claiming that the company forced them to falsify efficacy data for its MMR vaccine.

The Slate article nowhere discloses that FDA licenses virtually all vaccines using the same mawing safety science deficiencies that brought us Gardasil. FDA claims that “vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing to determine their safety.” But that’s not true. FDA’s choice to classify vaccine makers as “biologics” rather than “drugs” opened a regulatory loophole that allows vaccines to evade any meaningful safety testing. Instead of the multi-year double-blind inert placebo studies—the gold standard of safety science—that the FDA requires prior to licensing other medications, most vaccines now on the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule were safety tested for only a few days or weeks. For example, the manufacturer’s package insert discloses that Merck’s Hep B vaccine (almost every American infant receives a Hep B shot on the day of birth) underwent, not five years, but a mere five days of safety testing. If the babies in these studies had a seizure—or died—on day six, Merck was under no obligation to disclose those facts.

Furthermore, many vaccines contain dangerous amounts of known neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum and carcinogens like formaldehyde, that are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune problems, food allergies and cancers that might not be diagnosed for many years. A five-day study has no way of spotting such associations. Equally shocking, FDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to measure proposed vaccines against true inert placebos, further obscuring researchers’ capacity to see adverse health effects and virtually guaranteeing that more subtle injuries, such as impaired immune response, loss of IQ or depression, will never be detected—no matter how widespread. Furthermore, the CDC has never studied the impacts on children’s health of combining 50 plus vaccines.

These lax testing requirements can save vaccine manufacturers tens of millions of dollars. That’s one of the reasons for the “gold rush” that has multiplied vaccines from three, when I was a boy, to the 50 plus vaccines that children typically receive today.

There are other compelling reasons why vaccines have become Pharma’s irresistible new profit and growth vehicle. For example, manufacturers of the 50 plus vaccines on CDC’s childhood schedule enjoy what has become a trapped audience of 74 million child consumers who are effectively compelled to purchase an expensive product, sparing vaccine makers additional millions in advertising and marketing costs.

But the biggest economic boon to vaccine makers has been the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). In 1986, Congress awash in pharmaceutical dollars—Big Pharma is, by far, the top Capitol Hill lobbying group—passed NCVIA giving pharmaceutical companies what amounts to blanket immunity from liability for any injury caused by vaccines. No matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer or how grievous the harm, vaccine-injured children cannot sue a vaccine company. That extraordinary law eliminated a principal cost associated with making other drugs and left the industry with little economic incentive to make vaccines safe. It also removed lawyers, judges and courts from their traditional roles as guardians of vaccine safety. Since the law’s passage, industry revenues have sky-rocketed from $1 billion to $44 billion.

The absence of critical attention to this exploding industry by liberal online sites is particularly troubling since pharma, using strategic investments, has effectively sidelined, not just Congress, lawyers and courts, but virtually all of our democracy’s usual public health sentinels. Pervasive financial entanglements with vaccine makers and the other alchemies of agency capture have transformed the FDA and CDC into industry sock puppets.

Strong economic drivers—pharmaceutical companies are the biggest network advertisers—discourage mainstream media outlets from criticizing vaccine manufacturers. A network president once told me he would fire any of his news show hosts who allowed me to talk about vaccine safety on air. “Our news division,” he explained, “gets up to 70% of ad revenues from pharma in non-election years.” Furthermore, liberal activists including environmental, human rights, public health and children’s advocates also steer clear of vaccine safety discussions. On other core issues like toxics, guns and cigarettes, the CDC has a long record of friendly collaboration with these advocates who have thereby acquired a knee-jerk impulse to protect the agency from outside criticism.

In this vacuum, online liberal news sites are the last remaining barrier to protect children from corporate greed, yet they have become self-appointed arbiters against exposing the public to negative information about vaccine manufacturers and regulators. Liberal voices are not just sidelined, they are subsumed in the orthodoxy that all vaccines are always good for all people—and the more the better. Working with Pharma reps and their tame politicians, liberal news reporters and columnists across America are laboring in nearly every state to make the CDC vaccine schedule compulsory for children and to eliminate religious, philosophical and even medical exemptions.

As a result, the government/Big Pharma combination has gained unprecedented power to override parental consent and force otherwise healthy children, and other unwilling consumers, to undergo compulsory vaccinations, a shocking advance along the road to a corporate totalitarianism which seeks absolute control, even of our bodies. Keep in mind that there is no authentic dispute that vaccination is a risky medical intervention. It was the wave of lawsuits arising from injuries suffered from the Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTP) vaccine in the 1980s, that caused Congress to pass the NCVIA bestowing immunity on the pharmaceutical industry, which threatened, otherwise, to stop making vaccines. In upholding that law, the Supreme Court declared NCVIA justified because “vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.” Since then, the Federal Vaccine Court, created by NCVIA, has paid out $3.8 billion to vaccine-injured individuals. That number dramatically understates the true gravity of the harm. A Department of Health and Human Services funded report acknowledges that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

Supporting a law that forces Americans to relinquish control of their bodies to a corporate/state behemoth is an odd posture for liberals, who once championed the precept of “informed consent,” as the mainstay of the Nuremberg Code and the declarations of Helsinki and Geneva which protect individuals against all coerced medical interventions.

Science suggests that we might have made a big mistake by not aggressively safety testing our mandatory vaccines. Chronic diseases like ADHD, asthma, autoimmune diseases and allergies now affect 54 percent of our children, up from 12.6 percent in 1988, the year NCVIA took effect. And those data measure only the injuries characterized in digital medical records. Health advocates warn that we may be missing subtler injuries like widespread losses in reading and IQ and in executive and behavioral functions.

The suspicion that the neurotoxins in vaccines may be negatively affecting a generation is not wild speculation. Numerous studies point to the once ubiquitous use of leaded gasoline as the cause of widespread IQ loss and violence that bedeviled the generations from the 1960s-1980s. Is it not possible that dramatically increased infant exposures to aluminum and ethyl mercury—a far more potent neurotoxin than lead—might be significantly debilitating the post NCVIA generation?

The CDC claims that the cause of the sudden explosion in neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune illnesses and food allergies that began in the late 1980s, is a mystery. However, vaccine court awards, manufacturers’ package inserts and reams of peer-reviewed science all recognize that many of the chronic diseases that suddenly became epidemic in our children following the passage of NCVIA can be caused by vaccines or their ingredients.

The Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine), the ultimate arbiter of federal vaccine safety science, has listed 155 diseases potentially associated with vaccination and scolded the CDC for failing to study 134 of them. School nurses who have spent decades in their jobs say they are seeing the sickest generation in history. The epidemic has not proven a problem for the vaccine industry. On the back end of the chronic disease explosion, vaccine companies like Merck are making a killing on the EpiPens, antidepressants, stimulants, asthma inhalers and anti-seizure drugs.

Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on the science, liberal blogs shut down discussion on this key public health and civil rights issue, and silence critics, treating faith in vaccines as a religion; the heresy of questioning dogma meets with anathema and excommunication.

The core of liberalism is a healthy skepticism toward government and business. So why do vaccines get a mulligan?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a longtime environmental campaigner and author of American Values: Lessons I Learned From My Family (HarperCollins) and Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertKennedyJr

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Corruption, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | United States | 7 Comments

Ashrawi: While the world works on saving lives, US and Israel working on killing peace

WAFA – April 12, 2020

RAMALLAH – Member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Hanan Ashrawi, said today that Israel was “cynically exploiting” the international community’s focus on protecting humanity from the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic to implement its extraterritorial and expansionist colonial agenda.

She said the Israeli politicians “are busy negotiating a coalition agreement centered on permanent colonization and annexation at the expense of Palestinian lives, land, and rights.”

“While the world is preoccupied with combating COVID-19, the joint Israeli-US committee set up to implement the US administration’s disastrous so-called plan has found the time and energy to work on annexation and prioritize it over saving lives,” Ashrawi said in a statement.

“The clear support and sponsorship of the US administration of these dangerous plans is further proof of the disruptive and irresponsible role of the Trump administration at all levels.”

She blamed the US administration’s “partnership with Israel on the issues of annexation and permanent occupation for making the situation on the ground completely untenable.”

Following is the full text of Ashrawi’s statement:

Israel is cynically exploiting the international community’s focus on protecting humanity and the world economy from the devastating consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic to implement its extraterritorial and expansionist colonial agenda.

Israeli politicians are busy negotiating a coalition agreement centered on permanent colonization and annexation at the expense of Palestinian lives, land, and rights.

While the world is preoccupied with combating COVID-19, the joint Israeli-US committee set up to implement the US administration´s disastrous so-called plan has found the time and energy to work on annexation and prioritize it over saving lives. The clear support and sponsorship of the US administration of these dangerous plans is further proof of the disruptive and irresponsible role of the Trump administration at all levels.

Israeli annexation is not a possibility the world should be worried about. It is a reality unfolding on the ground to the grave detriment of future generations in the region and at the expense of the standing and relevance of multilateral efforts and international law. Israel is taking practical steps to permanently and irreversibly undercut the realization of the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights to freedom and independence, thus ensuring permanent conflict in the region.

Israel has scaled up land grab, settlement and Wall construction, nightly raids and other illegal measures and crimes to satisfy the insatiable appetite of colonial expansion. This agenda is now the common ground on which unity government discussions are based, dissolving any pretension that main Israeli political actors have differences on the policies of ensuring permanent colonization, enacting annexation, and enforcing apartheid-like policies. This dangerous agenda is neither new nor surprising.

It is what the Palestinian leadership has warned from for years. Regrettably, the international community has abdicated its responsibilities to hold Israel accountable for its pervasive illegal actions and shameful impunity. This inaction has emboldened and empowered the Israeli political establishment to abandon all pretense of commitment to the internationally agreed-on solution of two states on the basis of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

The current US administration’s ideological and practical partnership with Israel on the issues of annexation and permanent occupation has made the situation completely untenable.

Despite its focus on combating the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community is well aware of what is transpiring on the ground, including Israel’s obstruction of Palestinian efforts to combat the virus effectively.

This was evident in the recent European Union statement announcing increased assistance to Palestine to help fight the virus. However, rhetorical diagnosis of the threat to peace and international obligations will not be enough to avert the complete breakdown of the world agenda for peace. Serious and deterrent international action is required to stop Israeli actions and plans. Time has run out on complacency and platitudes.

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | Human rights, Israel, Palestine, United States, Zionism | 1 Comment

Tara Reade, Biden’s Former Aide and Accuser, Files Criminal Complaint for Sexual Assault

Sputnik – April 12, 2020

Joe Biden’s sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade, filed a criminal complaint against the former vice president on Thursday, according to a police report seen by Business Insider.

In it, Reade claimed that Biden pushed her up against the wall in a Senate corridor and penetrated her with his fingers. The incident allegedly took place in 1993, when she was working for Biden, the then-Democratic senator from Delaware.

Reade, 56, initially claimed in April 2019 that Biden had inappropriately touched her several times and “used to put his hand on [her] shoulder and run his finger up [her] neck”. She also implied that Biden retaliated and eventually forced her out after she tried to speak out about his behaviour to the US Senate office.

She recounted the incident in vivid detail in an interview last month. “He had me against the wall,” she recalled, saying that it happened either in the Capitol or in the Russell Senate Office Building.

“And then his hands were down my skirt and up my skirt. And I was wearing–I wasn’t wearing stockings underneath. And then, with his hand, he went from there and entered me–with his hand–and as he was trying to kiss me, and saying things to me.”

The woman now maintains that she filed the report because she had been “harassed so badly” for her revelations and because she wanted to spur a “deeper conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and powerful men.”

Reade told Business Insider that she was willing to testify under oath or cooperate with law enforcement if necessary. She acknowledged, however, that the statute of limitations for the alleged assault had expired, meaning that Biden won’t face criminal proceedings. The Biden campaign is yet to comment, although it flatly denied the claims last month.

The story has gained little traction in left-wing mainstream media, who have been supportive of Joe Biden as he is on course to secure the Democratic nomination.

Reade maintains that she does not pursue political motives; she urged Republicans in a tweet to “not use [her] assault for political gain” and pressure the media to question Biden more.

She was just one of several women who have accused Biden of inappropriately touching them or violating their private space – for instance, putting his hand on one woman’s thigh or rubbing noses with another – but none described his actions as sexual assault or harassment.

Reade’s accusations represent the most serious legal (and quite possibly public image) issue for the Democratic presidential hopeful.

Joe Biden refused to apologise for his alleged behaviour at the time, saying only that he was sorry that “they took it a different way”, but that he had not intended to be inappropriate.

April 12, 2020 Posted by aletho | Aletho News | United States | 1 Comment

A Viral Pandemic or A Crime Scene?

By Gilad Atzmon | April 11, 2020

We have recently heard from frontline medical physicians that the current global health crisis is something they have not been trained to deal with nor do they fully understand the spectrum of symptoms they encounter in hospitals and emergency centres. Earlier this week, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an emergency physician affiliated with Maimonides Medical Center (Brooklyn), posted two insightful videos urging health practitioners to accept that COVID-19 does not cause any form of pneumonia. Instead, the virus causes a condition of oxygen deprivation, and ventilators as they are currently being used, may cause more harm than good for some patients.

Watch Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidel:

What Dr. Kyle-Sidell suggests is a paradigm change in the perception of the current endemic. Kyle-Sidell is not alone, the few doctors who allow themselves to discuss the situation in a critical manner admit that medical science is perplexed by the virus.

One would assume that if the virus at the centre of the current epidemic was an unsavoury present from ‘mother nature’ we would be able to trace its evolution. We likely would have seen the gradual appearance of some of the new symptoms that have caught our medical establishment unprepared. It doesn’t seem this happened. In the view of many medical practitioners the new disease is in a category of its own. It is a novelty.

This means that it is possible that the Corona virus wasn’t created by nature but by creatures who believe themselves to be greater than nature.

In light of the above, I offer my paradigm change, one that is probably more radical than what Dr. Kyle-Sidell may have had in mind.

Since we do not know its provenance, we should treat the current epidemic as a potentially criminal act as well as a medical event. We must begin the search for the perpetrators who may be at the centre of this possible crime of global genocidal proportions.

While medical diagnosis is defined by:

1. a determination of the nature of the cause of a disease.

2. a concise technical description of the cause, nature, and/or manifestations of the symptoms.

Criminal investigations are primarily engaged with the human element. The criminal investigator seeks to ascertain the methods, motives, and identities of criminals, the identity of victims and may also search for and interrogate witnesses to the crime.

Treating the Corona virus as a crime would mean searching for possible offenders: individuals, institutions, or states that may have created the lethal virus as part of a research program or more directly, as an agent of biological warfare.

Law enforcement agencies often allocate dozens of investigators, officers, detectives and agents to untangle a single homicide. One would expect that following the deaths of tens of thousands around the globe, every police force, government and intelligence agency would join forces in the attempt to identify the possible culprit(s) at the root of the coronavirus crisis. We may be dealing with a negligent or criminal event on a massive scale.

While scientists and medical experts find it difficult to explain exactly how Covid-19 operates or how it came about, a few critical voices within the scientific community and the dissident media have pointed to alternative explanations that seem more explanatory than anything conventional medical thought has so far offered.

Some claim that G5 radiation is at the core of the new epidemic. I do not have any intention nor am in any position to comment on the topic, however, considering the scale of death we are dealing with, a criminal investigation may have to look closely into such a possibility: identifying the danger, identifying the possible motive and spotting the financial benefactors as well as beneficiaries.

A number of scientists have commented that laboratories and research centres have been engaged in the study of corona viruses and experimented with models that resemble the current virus. Specifically, some have pointed to a North Carolina laboratory that experimented with the viruses extracted from bats in 2015.

Back in 2015 USA Today published extensive research relating to the ongoing safety issues in biological laboratories in America and elsewhere. “Vials of bioterror bacteria have gone missing. Lab mice infected with deadly viruses have escaped, and wild rodents have been found making nests with research waste. Cattle infected in a university’s vaccine experiments were repeatedly sent to slaughter and their meat sold for human consumption. Gear meant to protect lab workers from lethal viruses such as Ebola and bird flu has failed, repeatedly.” The American outlet revealed that “hundreds of lab mistakes, safety violations and near-miss incidents have occurred in biological laboratories coast to coast in recent years, putting scientists, their colleagues and sometimes even the public at risk.” Naturally, safety failures in biological laboratories aren’t just an American problem. “A small, deadly outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in China in 2004 was traced to lab workers at the National Institute of Virology in Beijing. In 2007, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease among cattle in England that required herds to be slaughtered was blamed on leaking drainage pipes at a nearby research complex.”

In 2014 the US National Institute of Health removed its funding of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments involving the influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Gain-of-function involves activating mutations to change the gene product to enhance its effect or so that its normal actions are superseded by a different and abnormal function. Apparently, the National Institute of Health’s moratorium ended on Dec. 19, 2017 when the US announced that it would resume funding American gain-of-function experiments involving these viruses. This means that since 2017 some American laboratories have been experimenting with Corona viruses; creating mutants with the financial support of the government.

Treating the Corona virus outbreak as a crime ought to include a visit by the FBI to the office of the National Institute of Health and a careful review of all the files related to American laboratories conducting GOF experiments with Coronavirus. This investigative procedure must be exercised in every region and country in the world that has engaged in GOF experiments.

As soon as the Corona virus became the new disaster, Dany Shoham, a former Israeli military intelligence officer, was quick to point to China’s biowarfare program as a possible originator of the virus.

By now, with the exception of President Trump and his Pompeo character, not many are convinced that Covid-19 is a Chinese Virus (as Trump refers to it when he wants to annoy progressives). A criminal investigation would have to examine Chinese as well as Russian, British, French, German, etc. laboratories and their safety records. It should also verify whether Dany Shoham had any evidence for his assertion regarding China or whether he was attempting to divert attention from another possible suspect in this Corona affair.

Israel, with its extensive biological warfare laboratories and WMD facilities must also be subject to thorough scrutiny.

During his first term as Israel’s leader, Mr Netanyahu authorised a risky attempt to assassinate the Palestinian rising star and Hamas leader, Mr. Khaled Meshaal in the Jordanian capital, Amman. Five Mossad agents, posing as Canadian tourists, were sent to Amman. They ambushed Mr Meshaal on a street corner and sprayed poison into his left ear and expected him to die within 48 hours.

But their plan went wrong. One of Meshaal’s bodyguards chased the two Mossad agents who had carried out the operation and, with the help of a passing Palestinian Liberation Army officer, managed to capture them.

Instead of escaping over the border as they had planned, the rest of the Mossad team was trapped in the Israeli embassy in Amman. Mr Netanyahu was left with no option other than to negotiate with King Hussein of Jordan and plead for his assassins’ return. The king, who was dying of cancer, drove a hard bargain. Israel had to supply immediately the antidote to the poison that was killing Mr Meshaal. Netanyahu also had to agree to release nine Jordanians and sixty-one Palestinian prisoners amongst them Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas and at the time, Israel’s most hated foe.

But here is the astonishing piece of this saga. The poison used by Israel is a slow-acting but lethal poison that gradually shuts down the brain’s respiratory centre, leading to death. The doctor that revived Meshaal described his condition as respiratory oxygen deficiency. To date, it is not clear what type of agent was used by the Mossad against Meshaal, but a few facts are known. Israel employed a biological/chemical agent with a respiratory effect. Israel possessed the antidote to its lethal agent. Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli PM, authorised the botched assassination and the usage of a biological/chemical weapon.

Watch Al Jazeera’s Kill Him Silently: Mossad vs Khaled Meshaal:

Israel is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention. It is generally assumed that the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona develops vaccines and antidotes for chemical and biological warfare. In 2012 Haaretz wrote of the Ness Ziona laboratory that it’s an “institution that very rarely finds itself in the news, and when it does, it’s usually because of some controversy or other. According to Israeli sources, the institute develops pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, treatments and antibodies to protect Israelis from chemical (gas) or biological weapons. That’s along with its civilian research projects.” Haarertz continues, “according to foreign reports, it also develops chemical and biological weapons. One of these reports said institute scientists had developed the poison that was meant to have eliminated Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal in the botched Mossad attack against him in Amman in 1997.”

Any detectives who examine the Ness Ziona Lab will have to figure out how the Israeli institute is already so advanced in the development of a Covid-19 vaccine. According to the Israeli press, a novel corona virus vaccine is already being tested at the institute.

Ness Ziona is not alone at the front of the Corona vaccine race. Migal, another Israeli company, announced at the end of February that it was almost ready with a vaccine. Detectives should ascertain whether Migal, like other laboratories around the world, is a safe environment and that it wasn’t in the Galilee laboratory that a tiny but vicious virus escaped its guardians.

Foreign Policy Magazine revealed three weeks ago that the Corona virus’ early appearance in Iran that sickened government and military leaders caused some Iranian officials to believe that the Coronavirus was part of an ‘American-Zionist biofare military campaign’ against their republic and its leaders.

I am not in any position to produce incriminating evidence against any person, institution or a state, it isn’t my job nor it is my wish to do so. I am a writer not a detective. Yet I maintain that evaluating the corona crisis as a crime may make those who plan to survive the pandemic feel a little safer in a world that long ago has lost its way.

April 11, 2020 Posted by aletho | Deception, Video, War Crimes | Covid-19, Israel | 7 Comments

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Iran’s Mass Protests /Patrick Henningsen & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Aletho News Videos

or go to

Aletho News Archives – Video-Images

From the Archives

Does Kevin Barrett Seek to “Absolve Islam of a Terrible Crime”?

The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Last part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”

By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 28, 2016

Amidst his litany of condemnations, Jonathan Kay reserves some of his most vicious and vitriolic attacks for Kevin Barrett. For instance Kay harshly criticizes Dr. Barrett’s published E-Mail exchange in 2008 with Prof. Chomsky. In that exchange Barrett castigates Chomsky for not going to the roots of the event that “doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution.” The original misrepresentations of 9/11, argues Barrett, led to further “false flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide.”

In Among The Truthers Kay tries to defend Chomsky against Barrett’s alleged “personal obsession” with “vilifying” the MIT academic. Kay objects particularly to Barrett’s “final salvo” in the published exchange where the Wisconsin public intellectual accuses Prof. Chomsky of having “done more to keep the 9/11 blood libel alive, and cause the murder of more than a million Muslims than any other single person.” … continue

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Enter your email address to receive new posts by email.

Email Address:

Join 2,405 other subscribers
Visits Since December 2009
- 7,280,160 hits
Looking for something?

Search for:
Archives
Archives
Calendar

April 2020

M T W T F S S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

« Mar May »
Categories

Aletho News Civil Liberties Corruption Deception Economics Environmentalism Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism Fake News False Flag Terrorism Full Spectrum Dominance Illegal Occupation Mainstream Media, Warmongering Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity Militarism Progressive Hypocrite Russophobia Science and Pseudo-Science Solidarity and Activism Subjugation - Torture Supremacism, Social Darwinism Timeless or most popular Video War Crimes Wars for Israel
Tags
9/11 Afghanistan Africa al-Qaeda Australia BBC Benjamin Netanyahu Brazil Canada CDC Central Intelligence Agency China CIA CNN Covid-19 COVID-19 Vaccine Donald Trump Egypt European Union Facebook FBI FDA France Gaza Germany Google Hamas Hebron Hezbollah Hillary Clinton Human rights Hungary India Iran Iraq ISIS Israel Israeli settlement Japan Jerusalem Joe Biden Korea Latin America Lebanon Libya Middle East National Security Agency NATO New York Times North Korea NSA Obama Pakistan Palestine Poland Qatar Russia Sanctions against Iran Saudi Arabia Syria The Guardian Turkey Twitter UAE UK Ukraine United Nations United States USA Venezuela Washington Post West Bank WHO Yemen Zionism

April 2020
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Aletho News
If Americans Knew
No Tricks Zone
Contact:

atheonews (at) gmail.com
Disclaimer

This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.

This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.

Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.

The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.

Fair Use

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

DMCA Contact

This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.

If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.

We will respond and take necessary action immediately.

If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.

All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.

	loongtip on Eilat port faces worst crisis…
	loongtip on British minister dreams of kid…
	loongtip on Kiev awards major mining proje…
	loongtip on UK believes it can seize any t…
	loongtip on Pirates of the Caribbean
	loongtip on Australian festival boycotted…
	loongtip on Kiev seeks to ban Russian musi…
	seversonebcfb985d9 on Somaliland and the ‘Grea…
	John Edward Kendrick on Kidnapped By the Washington…
	aletho on Somaliland and the ‘Grea…
	John Edward Kendrick on Somaliland and the ‘Grea…
	aletho on Donald Trump, and Most America…

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Image credit: Democratic Majority for Israel/ Facebook

Hatzalah ambulances in New York. Credit: Chris Sampson/ Flickr

Featured Video

From the Archives

By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | August 28, 2016

Blog Roll

Subscribe to Aletho News

Visits Since December 2009

Looking for something?

Archives

Calendar

Categories

Tags

Recent Comments

Contact:

Disclaimer

Site info