Aletho News


Pulmonary Specialist discusses health risks of wearing masks & the lies surrounding Covid-19

The Last American Vagabond | November 3, 2020

Joining me today is a Dr. Sterling Simpson MD, a double boarded pulmonary specialist here to discuss his dissenting views on numerous topics of paramount importance, each of which we have discussed at length here at The Last American Vagabond, and all surrounding the COVID-19 scandal. His professional opinions, despite being deemed “controversial,” are currently supported by countless experts and medical professionals around the world. My objective today as the host of this interview is to give you an opportunity to listen to these medical opinions that the entirety of MSM are actively hiding from you, and which you have every right to hear. As always, listen, think, and come to your own conclusions.
Want to send a check to support TLAV, or just words of encouragement?


Dr. Simpson’s Book:

5 NIH studies from 2004-2020 all finding verifiable health effects from wearing a face mask, including scientifically verified reduction is blood oxygen level:

Cloth Mask Study

Other Mask Studies:

Support The Last American Vagabond by Subscribing here:

The Last American Vagabond Links:


“Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 1 Comment

The Anti-Trump Regime Change Sequence Is Worthwhile Studying

By Andrew Korybko | OneWorld | November 5, 2020

Does Anyone Even Fully Understand What’s Happening?

I wrote on Wednesday that “Every Democrat Is A Wannabe Dictator”, but many of these potential tyrants don’t even fully understand the dynamics of the regime change process that they’re supporting. Nor, for that matter, do many of those who patriots and principled observers abroad who oppose it understand it all that much either. They just hold their respective positions because it’s either in their political interests to do so like the supporters do, or it’s against their own and/or conflicts with their principles. In any case, it’s worthwhile enlightening everyone by sharing a simplified sequence of events explaining how this unprecedented regime change process unfolded over the past four years. The resultant insight will hopefully enable others to preemptively identify similar regime change schemes when they’re only in their incipient phases, thus allowing the responsible authorities to potentially take action to thwart them before they reach their final stage.

The Seeds Of The Scheme

The seeds of this scheme were planted several months prior to the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton authorized a smear campaign against Trump alleging that he’s secretly a “Russian agent”. It was hoped that this would discredit the race’s frontrunner and thus result in handing her the presidency that November. This eventually morph into the discredited “Steele dossier” and the subsequent Russiagate conspiracy theory. The purpose of these information warfare provocations was to delegitimize Trump’s election, insincerely present the Democrats as the guardians of America’s electoral integrity, and therefore powerfully shape public perceptions ahead of the 2020 election. During the interim, a related narrative was weaponized claiming that Trump is a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who’ll cling to power at all costs.

The Democrats’ Preemptive Deflection Of Suspicion

The intention behind that claim was to precondition the public into expecting that Trump would resort to an illegal power grab if he lost the election fair and square, the latter scenario of which people were made to believe since the Democrats spent four years insincerely portraying themselves as the guardians of America’s electoral integrity via their now-debunked Russiagate and Ukrainegate crusades. All of this was meant to preemptively deflect any suspicions that they were preparing to carry out what’s arguably the largest electoral fraud in American history, though the means through which they planned to do so unexpectedly changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic which presented an entirely new opportunity for them. That was the prospect of a massive influx of mail-in ballots into an electoral system that obviously wasn’t prepared for it.

The Political Exploitation Of The COVID-19 Pandemic

Like I wrote in my recent analysis about how “The Connection Between World War C & Psychological Processes Is Seriously Concerning”, COVID-19 is indeed real and definitely dangerous for at-risk members of the population, but it’s also been unquestionably exploited for political ends as evidenced by the double standards that Democrat governors applied towards the lockdown. If they really thought that COVID-19 was as deadly for the vast majority of the population as some experts have said that it is, then they wouldn’t have risked the massive culling of their electorate by encouraging them to wantonly burn, loot, riot, and even murder in rare instances all across their states’ major cities under the banner of Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” (BLM). This kinetic phase of the decades-long Hybrid War of Terror on America was meant to intimidate average Americans.

Red Wave” vs. “Blue Wave”

Just as importantly, however, their selective enforcement of draconian lockdown decrees against people of a different political persuasion (i.e. Trump supporters) was an ill-convincing effort to keep up the charade that mail-in voting was necessary in order to “save lives from COVID.” Few truly believe that this is the case since the Democrats’ visible double standards prove that the pandemic has been completely politicized for the purpose of justifying a massive influx of mail-in ballots into an electoral system totally unprepared to handle it. This set the stage for the Democrats to craftily predict over the summer that the winner might not be known on election day and to disregard any initial signs of a “red wave” pointing to Trump’s re-election since people were misled to believe that a “blue wave” will inevitably follow to crush it.

Connecting The Dots

This was extremely sneaky from the perception management perspective because it preemptively served to cover their tracks among average voters who might otherwise immediately suspect fraud in that scenario. Coupled with the prior narrative that Trump is a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who’ll cling to power at all costs, the impression was shaped in many minds that any condemnation of this course of events by Trump would supposedly be indicative of him — not the Democrats — endeavoring to commit fraud. Had it not been for COVID-19 and the Democrats’ subsequent politicization thereof for the purpose of justifying ~100 million mail-in ballots, then their preplanned effort to defraud the vote might not have been as successful or convincing. Even so, their visible double standards in response to the lockdown made many people question their motives.

Big Tech Censorship

So many are suspicious of what happened, in fact, that the Democrats’ Big Tech allies went on a censorship spree the day after the election to block accounts and pages that encouraged concerned Americans to peacefully express their first amendment right to the freedom of assembly by staging law-abiding rallies in Trump’s support. As a case in point, OneWorld was deplatformed within hours of me sharing my article about how “It’s Time To Employ ‘Democratic Security’ Strategies To #StopTheSteal” for suggesting exactly that, which speaks to the powerful role that social media companies played in the lead-up to and subsequent aftermath of the election. Not only did they suppress practically all reporting of the Hunter Biden corruption scandal (which also seems to implicate Joe Biden), but they’re now actively suppressing Americans’ freedom of assembly.

The Unholy Trinity”

This wasn’t coincidental either but the result of Big Tech’s alliance with the Democrats and their anti-Trump patrons in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”). All three of them literally conspired with one another to manipulate Americans’ perceptions of both the incumbent candidate and the electoral process. In addition, this “unholy trinity” also fully supports the half-year-long spree of urban terrorism unleashed by their de-facto street militias of Antifa and BLM in response to their political exploitation of the George Floyd incident. It’s unclear, just like with mail-in ballots, whether this stage of the Hybrid War would have gone active had it not been for that event which was as unexpected as COVID-19 was, but in any case, both were politicized to the extreme for the earlier mentioned regime change purposes.

Everything Went According To Plan

On election night, everything went off without a hitch from their perspective. Trump’s “red wave” crashed into most battleground states but was then pushed back by the “blue wave” supposedly resulting from the millions of mail-in ballots that the mainstream media wants everyone to believe were almost entirely for Biden. Not only is so statistically unlikely as to practically be impossible, but it also followed a suspicious suspension of the ballot count for at least several hours in the election-deciding states that had yet to declare a winner. As expected, Trump condemned this blatant fraud, thus conforming to the role of a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who will stop at nothing to cling to power like many were preconditioned to wrongly believe. Even if Trump somehow pulls off a legal victory and ends up winning the race, his legitimacy is now in dispute.

The Democrats’ “Worst-Case” Scenario

In the Democrats’ “worst-case” scenario, they’d simply intensify their now-kinetic Hybrid War of Terror on America by encouraging their de-facto street militias of Antifa and BLM to wage a more sophisticated campaign of urban terrorism on the pretext of it supposedly being “legitimate antifascist resistance to a racist dictator who illegally stole the election”. It shouldn’t be forgotten that similar terrorist campaigns were launched against Syrian President Assad and former Libyan leader Gaddafi under almost identical “pro-democracy” pretexts, which testifies to the fact that what’s already happening in America nowadays as well as what’s poised to follow in the Democrats’ “worst-case” scenario of having their voter fraud attempt overturned (perhaps at the Supreme Court level) has the “deep state’s” fingerprints all over it.

Concluding Thoughts

The sequence of events which culminated in the ongoing superficially “democratic” coup attempt is very complex and also involves much more than what was simplified in this analysis, though the present piece highlights the most important trends that everyone should pay attention to. The outcome of this unprecedented struggle for leadership of the fading unipolar superpower is still uncertain since this is completely uncharted territory for the country. Nevertheless, understanding how everything got to this point might help others identify similar patterns ahead of time so that they can be snuffed out in their infancy before maturing into the anti-democratic disaster that’s facing America today. Seeing as how the US is the global trendsetter, it can thus be expected that this regime change method might eventually be employed elsewhere across the world with time.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | 1 Comment

Iran finally brings desalinated Persian Gulf water to its arid desert

Press TV | November 5, 2020

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has opened a mega project for transferring desalinated sea water to arid deserts in the Iranian Plateau, the first in the history of a country where water shortage has always been a major impediment to economic development.

Rouhani used a video conference call on Thursday to supervise the start of water transfer from desalination facilities off the Persian Gulf in southern Hormozgan province to water-intensive industries in southeastern province of Kerman.

The transfer line, which includes dozens of tunnels, pumping stations and storage facilities, takes desalinated water some 305 kilometers to one of Iran’s largest mining and metals plants in Sirjan.

The first phase of the project has cost nearly 165 trillion rials (over $600 million). The Iranian Energy Ministry said that around a third of the total water desalinated in the project, some 150 million m3 per year from a total of 450 million m3 of sea water, would be purchased on a guaranteed basis for household consumption in two coastal cities.

The transfer line is planned to continue another 500 kilometers in the next phases of the project to take water to copper smelters in Sarcheshmeh, in north of Kerman, and further into the heart of the Iranian desert in Yazd province where the sprawling Chadormalu mining complex, the largest iron ore producer in the Middle East, is located.

The desalinated water will also be consumed for irrigation, said Rouhani during the inauguration ceremony, as he insisted that the project would relieve a huge burden from underground water resources and would boost environmental conditions in the Iranian Plateau and along the Persian Gulf coast.

“This project had been deemed unimaginable and it materialized in the Government of Discretion and Hope,” Rouhani said making a reference to a phrase routinely used to distinguish his two four-year terms in office that began 2013.

The Iranian president hailed the launch of key infrastructure projects in recent years in Iran as a sign that a series of unprecedented sanctions imposed by the United States have failed to dent the country’s resolve for development.

“We have managed to take these big steps despite sanctions, despite the pressure and despite the fact that a terrorist government was in office in America” he said.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Economics | | 3 Comments

Sorry, Google and World Bank, but Middle Eastern Crops Keep Thriving

By H. Sterling Burnett | ClimateRealism | November 4, 2020

Google News today is promoting articles (see the Google-promoted PhysOrg article here, for example) about a speculative World Bank “study” claiming climate change is threatening crop production in the Middle East. The World Bank study is full of speculation but short on facts. Real-world data show crop yields per acre and total crop production are consistently and dramatically rising in each of the Middle East countries examined by the World Bank study.

In its study, titled “Water in the Balance,” the World Bank says, “[w]hile information about water scarcity at present and in the future is available there is little knowledge of what this increasing scarcity means for Middle Eastern … food security. Agriculture will suffer because of climate change and water scarcity….”

In particular the World Bank asserts water scarcity caused by climate change will reduce farm production in Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. The available evidence strongly suggests that will not happen.

Had the study’s authors examined real-world data concerning crop production in the Middle Eastern countries, they would have found, even amidst substantial strife in the region, crop yields and overall production have increased dramatically. More food is being produced even as thousands of acres of agricultural lands have been abandoned during regional conflicts.

Data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization show during the period of modest warming since 1989:

It is clearly good news – and not a climate crisis – that Middle Eastern countries have increased crop production despite the fact that many of them have been embroiled in internal political strife, outright civil warfare, and external conflicts. That good news is ignored in the World Bank’s doom-and-gloom report.

Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land suitable for crop production. Also, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life. In addition, crops also use water more efficiently under conditions of higher carbon dioxide, losing less water to transpiration. The latter fact should have allayed the World Bank’s concern about climate change induced water shortages leading to crop failure.

The benefits of more atmospheric carbon dioxide and a modestly warming world have resulted in 17 percent more food being available per person today than there was 30 years ago, even as the number of people has grown by billions. Indeed, the last 20 years have seen the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history.

Sorry, World Bank, Google, and PhysOrg, but that does not equate to a climate crisis.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, most recently as a senior fellow in charge of NCPA’s environmental policy program. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How a Wise Decoupling May Be a Good Thing for Both China and the West

By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 5, 2020

Imagine a bird was led to believe that it was a fish. For a while it might get used to living under water, but it wouldn’t take long before it could sense that something was wrong. If the bird didn’t realize that its nature is to fly and breath the air in time, then its fate would be bleak indeed.

Since the world was taken off the gold reserve system way back in 1971, a new age of “post-industrialism” was unleashed onto a globalized world. Humanity was given a new type of system which presumed that both our nature and the cause of value itself were located in the act of consuming. The old idea that our nature was creative, and that our wealth was tied to producing, was assumed to be an obsolete thing of the past… a relic of a dirty old industrial age.

Under the new post-1971 operating system, we were told that the world would now be divided among producers and consumers.

The “have-not producers” would provide the cheap labor which first world consumers would increasingly rely on for the creation of goods they used to make for themselves. “First world” nations were told that according to the new post-industrial rules of de-regulation and market economics, that they should export their heavy industry, machine tools and other productive sectors abroad as they transitioned into “white collar” post-industrial consumer societies. The longer this outsourcing of industries went on, the less western nations found themselves capable of sustaining their own citizenries, building their own infrastructure or determining their own economic destinies.

In place of full spectrum economies that once saw over 40% of North America’s labor force employed in manufacturing, a new addiction to “buying cheap stuff” began, and a “service economy” took over like a cancer.

To make matters worse, the many newly independent nations struggling to liberate themselves from colonialism were told that they would have to abandon their dreams of development since those goals would render the formula of a producer-consumer stratified society impossible to create. Those leaders resisting this edict would face assassination or CIA overthrow. Those leaders who adapted to the new rules would become peons of the new age of “Economic Hitmen”.

As the great president William McKinley had observed long ago (1), nations who develop full spectrum economies also have higher quality, educated citizens using advanced technology which causes more costly goods… meaning no dollar stores and no sweat shops.

The Case of China: Producer for the World

When Henry Kissinger negotiated the opening up of China in the 1970s, the intention was much less benevolent than the story projected.

By the time Deng Xiaoping announced the “opening up” of China in 1978, Kissinger had already managed the economic paradigm shift of 1971, the artificial “oil shock therapy” of 1973 and authored his 1974 NSSM 200 Report which transformed U.S. Foreign Policy from a pro-development orientation towards a new policy of depopulation targeting the poor nations of the global south under the logic that the resources under their soil were the lawful possession of the USA.

Kissinger, and the hives of Trilateral Commission/CFR operatives to which he was beholden never looked on China as a true ally, but merely as a zone of abundant cheap labor which would feed cheap goods to the now post-industrial west under their new dystopic producer-consumer world order. It was in that same year that Kissinger’s fellow Trilateral Commission cohort Paul Volcker announced a “controlled disintegration of western society” which was begun in full with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes to 20% that ensured a vast destruction of small and medium businesses across the board.

Believing China (then still largely an impoverished third world country) to be desperate enough to accept money and short-term salvation after years of trauma induced by the Cultural Revolution. Under Kissinger’s logic, China would receive just enough money to sustain a static existence but would never be able to stand on its own two feet.

Unbeknownst to Kissinger, China’s leaders under the direction of Zhou Enlai, and his disciple Deng Xiaoping had a much longer-term strategic perspective than their western partners imagined.

Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai in 1962

While receiving much needed revenue from foreign exports, China began to slowly create the foundations for a genuine renaissance which would be made possible by slowly learning the skills, leapfrogging technologies and acquiring means of production which the west had once pioneered. Zhou Enlai had first enunciated this visionary program as early as 1963 under his Four Modernizations mandate (Industrial, agricultural, national defense and science and technology) and then restated this program in January 1976 weeks before his death.

This program manifested itself in the July 6, 1978 State Council Forum on the “Principles to Guide the Four Modernizations” informed by the findings of international exploratory missions conducted by economist Gu Mu’s delegations around various advanced world economies (Japan, Hong Kong, Western Europe). The findings of Gu Mu’s reports laid out the concrete pathways for full spectrum economic sovereignty with a focus on cultivating the cognitive creative powers of a new generation of scientists that would drive the non linear breakthroughs needed for China to ultimately break free of the rules of closed-system economics which technocrats like Kissinger wished the world adhere to.

Deng Xiaoping broke from the radical Marxism prevalent among the intelligentsia by redefining “labor” from purely material constraints and elevating the concept rightfully to the higher domain of mind saying:

“We should select several thousand of our most qualified personnel within the scientific and technological establishment and create conditions that will allow them to devote their undivided attention to research. Those who have financial difficulties should be given allowances and subsidies… we must create within the party an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and respect for trained personnel. The erroneous attitude of not respecting intellectuals must be opposed. All work. Be it mental or manual, is labor.”

Over the course of the coming decades, China learned, and like any student, copied, reverse engineered and reconstructed western techniques as it slowly generated capacities that ultimately allowed them press on the limits of human knowledge outpacing all western models.

Scientific and technological progress became the driving force of its entire economy and by 1986, the “863 Project for Research and Development” was announced which focused on areas of space, lasers, energy, biotechnology, new materials, automation and information technology. This project became the driver for creative innovation guided by the National Science Foundation and was upgraded to the 973 Basic Research Program in 2009 to: “1) support multidisciplinary and fundamental research of relevance to national development; 2) Promote frontline basic research; 3) Support the cultivation of scientific talent capable of original research; and 4) Build high-quality interdisciplinary research centers.”

Although China is often accused of intellectual theft, the reality is that it has begun to clearly outpace western nations becoming a pioneer on every level of science and technology. China now registers more patents than the USA, has become the cutting edge leader of high speed rail engineering with over 30 000 km, bridge building, tunneling, as well as water management, quantum computing, AI, 5G telecommunications, and even space science becoming the first nation to ever land on the far side of the moon with an intent to mine Helium 3 and develop permanent bases on the Moon in the coming decade.

All of these cutting edge fields of science and engineering are being organized by the ever-growing Belt and Road Initiative which has taken on global proportions and integrated itself into a deep alliance with Russia, Iran and over 135 nations who have signed onto the BRI Framework stretching from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Asia, and Europe.

This is the system which the USA and other western nations could have joined on multiple occasions, but which has instead been targeted as a global threat to western hegemony. According to the logic of those western utopians who refuse to let go of their old outdated 1971 script for a new world order, China’s New Silk Road must be subverted at all costs since it is very well understood that it would become the basis for a new world system as the old globalized paradigm comes crashing down faster than the Hindenburg.

So what can be done?

Amidst this anti-China war policy has emerged another policy which began as a “Trade War” and escalated to a potential “decoupling” of the USA from China under President Trump.

This decoupling would involve cutting off reliance on using China as a cheap labor exporter, and even industrial production source as well. Obviously, friendship and collaboration between the USA and China is vitally important for the long-term survival of civilization, but is this decoupling an intrinsically bad thing in the short term?

Maybe not.

If the USA is to survive the oncoming collapse and break free of its apocalyptic war agenda, then certain realities WILL have to occur. These realities include (but are not limited to):

1) Regaining its lost industrial potential, with an emphasis on the machine tool sector which the west once enjoyed as a world leader

2) Regaining the lost scientific and technological capacities which the USA once had when it still valued productive thinking under the days of JFK and NASA

3) Regaining a grasp of education which values productive citizens over consumer subjects

4) Regaining control over national credit under federal banking, dirigisme and other long-term investment practices that rely on regulating Wall Street speculation and other unproductive forms of banking.

How might these vital capacities be regained?

For one thing, protectionism will be necessary. China has used protectionist measures to a great effect, and every nation has the right, if not the duty, to apply protective tariffs in the defense of their economic sovereignty in order to ensure that it is more profitable to purchase locally than abroad. In fact, it was only by employing protective tariffs in the pre-Globalized past that the USA (or any other nation for that matter) built up their industrial capacities in the first place while these capacities were always lost whenever free trade, de-regulation policies were imposed.

Parity Pricing is vital if the USA is to rebuild the small and medium agro-industrial enterprises that once generated the vitality of society decades ago. Parity pricing was a common practice among western governments between 1945-1970 which imposed certain constraints on price variability of certain goods to ensure that prices never dropped so low that the manufacturers could afford to stay in business or rise so high that consumers cannot afford to buy said goods. Today’s agricultural crisis in the USA could only be reversed were such policies implemented quickly (2).

National banking is another vital pre-condition to a recovery. Under the period of 1791-1836, during the 1862-1869 greenback system, or during FDR’s 1933-45 use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, national credit was generated by acts of purchasing bonds via the Treasury and emitting loans directly to companies which would be mandated to carry out the jobs needed to build great infrastructure megaprojects (Erie Canal, transcontinental railway, or Tennessee Valley authority). Similar practices have been revived under China’s state banking system today which provides the majority of the loans to companies building the New Silk Road either in China itself or abroad.

While detractors call these sorts of policies “trade war” or “offenses to the laws of the World Trade Organization”, as I laid out in a 2018 lecture, they are exactly what is needed for any sort of recovery to occur.

Before the USA could ever possibly work as a reliable partner on the Belt and Road Initiative or any nation of the emerging multipolar alliance, it must learn to stand once again on its own two feet.

This transitionary process may have painful aspects to it, much like a drug addict trying to wean themselves off of heroine, but if the intent is genuine, and the means lawful, then it is certainly possible, even at this late date.

As the USA weans itself off of its addiction to China’s cheap goods, China will be better prepared to produce ever more high quality goods on a “fair trade basis” for markets which are also committed to full spectrum economic goals whether in Asia, Africa, or beyond.

Everything hinges on the upcoming U.S. elections

President Trump has outlined a series of measures that reflect a pro-industrial orientation which the mainstream media has worked very hard to cover up.

Over his first term, Trump not only rejected the precepts of laissez faire economics by cancelling the anti-China Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) but renegotiated the nation-killing NAFTA giving nation states of North America the right to intervene into their economic destinies for the first time since 1994. He also broke with a 50 year anti-space tradition by giving full backing to a renewal of the space program with the Artemis Program and outlined a global cooperative space platform with the Artemis Accords. Just as JFK’s Apollo program generated over $10 for ever $1 invested in non-linear ways, so too will the current goal of creating a permanent lunar base and launch pad to Mars generate similar effects as new discoveries and inventions with immense industrial applications will come online. This was renewed in a GOP policy tweet of Oct. 23:

Trump has also called for a national re-industrialization program designed to bring back vital heavy industries to rust belt dead zones of America that have fallen into dark age conditions over the past 4 decades and in his current platform has called for a continental high speed rail system. For the Arctic, Trump has given federal endorsement to the Alaska-Canada railway which itself brings the long-overdue Bering Strait rail tunnel endorsed by both Russia and China ever closer to reality. This policy represents a total break from the Pentagon’s Arctic war policy also active in Alaska.

On economic diplomacy, Trump has broken from the anti-growth program launched by Obama’s technocrats by ending the moratorium on nuclear power investments by green lighting the International Development Finance Corporation’s investment into 2500 mW of nuclear energy for South Africa and another nuclear plant for Poland (which currently relies on 70% coal power and wants 9 GW of nuclear by 2040). This change in policy brings the USA into harmony with the modus operandi of both Russia and China who are the only other nations seriously investing in nuclear power within their own nations or Africa.

Similarly, Trump has won the ire of many regime changers by defunding CIA-front democracy movements like NED in Hong Kong, Ukraine and Belarus while introducing economic win-win diplomacy in helping to resolve the Serbia-Kosovo crisis via investments into rail, roads and infrastructure. This approach also complements the restoration of a non-interventionist defense strategy that began with Trump’s collaboration with Russia in Syria and continues with his withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria over recent months.

In every category economic, military, diplomatic, space and beyond, two obvious paradigms are clashing represented by two opposing Americas.

If Trump is able to maintain control of the presidency over the coming weeks and months of storms (don’t fool yourself. It is unlikely that the results of the election will be finalized in November or even December) then there is a chance that the USA may find the moral fitness to survive by regenerating its lost industrial base and changing its behaviour in conformity with natural law.

Should this be done, then the USA will be able to re-acquire its claim of “independence” for the first time in decades. With that independence, will come the slow reconstruction of its decrepit infrastructure, intellectual and cultural decay and achieve the basis for a full spectrum sovereign economy. This hoped-for USA would be a very different creature from the one the world has known since the murder of JFK in 1963 and this would be a nation that could be trusted to act in its own true self interest as a partner to other like minded nations working for their own true self interests under the umbrella of international projects that benefit all participants.

The author can be reached at

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

China Looks To Boost Oil Exploration, Expand Oil & Gas Storage

By Charles Kennedy | | November 3, 2020

China plans to further increase oil and gas exploration and accelerate the construction of more oil and gas storage infrastructure, state news agency Xinhua reported on Tuesday.

Last week, China’s Communist Party adopted the principles of the five-year development plan 2021-2025.

China will also aim to build more oil and gas pipelines, according to its authorities.

China has been looking to increase its energy security in recent years, including by increasing domestic oil and gas production and expanding its storage facilities.

Over the past decade, China’s oil production has been falling while its oil demand has been soaring, increasing Beijing’s dependence on sourcing oil from abroad.

China’s dependence on crude oil imports has been growing in recent years as its domestic production has faltered, and the world’s top oil importer covered 73.4 percent of its oil demand with imported oil in the first half of 2020.

In the first half of 2020, China’s crude oil production did increase, by 1.7 percent year on year, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China. The growth in production between January and June, however, was 0.7 percentage point slower than that of the first quarter, the bureau said.

Higher domestic production, however, will not be able to cover the rise in China’s oil and gas demand, so China will continue to be a key player on the global oil and gas markets and a critical gauge of oil and gas demand growth.

Meanwhile, China is set to increase its natural gas imports from Russia as Russian gas giant Gazprom has started constructing the extension of its gas pipeline to China, Upstream reported on Tuesday. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2022 and is estimated to cost US$3.5 billion (280 billion Russian rubles), according to the Russian gas giant.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Economics | , | 1 Comment

Biden’s Electric Car Delusion

By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris | America Out Loud | November 3, 2020

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s election promise to vastly increase electric cars in America makes no sense. It would leave people with unreliable vehicles, huge transportation costs and do nothing to protect the environment.

Beside aiming to ensure “100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified,” The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice makes the following commitments:

    • Biden will work with our nation’s governors and mayors to support the deployment of more than 500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030.
    • Biden will restore the full electric vehicle tax credit to incentivize the purchase of these vehicles.
    • Biden will work to develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama-Biden Administration put in place.

A Canadian engineer recently ran the numbers involved in the switchover to electric vehicles (EVs) and concluded that, in order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, the filling station would require six hundred, 50-kilowatt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million. The station would require a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid which would be enough to power 20,000 homes. Unlike home recharging stations, these would be operating at peak usage hours where the rates are the highest.

Where would all that power come from? As quoted on The Heartland Institute’s Web site, Dr. David Wojick, director of the Climate Change Debate Education Project said,

“There is almost no excess generating, distribution, or transmission capacity in the United States, or globally for that matter, so a lot of new, expensive power plants and power lines will be needed if EVs are ever to become popular. The EV grid simply does not exist.”

This means that, without the construction of vast new multi-billion-dollar electrical grids, Biden’s plan is simply a recipe for nationwide brownouts and blackouts and a lot of stranded motorists. No wonder one of the main worries car owners have with respect to EVs is ‘range anxiety.’ You need to plan any EV trip very carefully or you will be calling your friends who still own gasoline-powered cars to pick you up in the middle of nowhere.

Biden also seems to be ignoring the fact that it can take between 30 minutes and 8 hours to recharge a vehicle, depending on it being empty or just topping off. Charging stations will need lounge areas, holding areas for vehicles completed but waiting for owners to return from shopping or dining and so on. The scope of the plan is staggering.

As time goes by more owners will also come to understand the problems in charging and recharging EVs in very cold weather. All batteries use electrolytes which are liquids such as acids, bases and salts that conduct electricity by the movement of ions. Hence, battery performance worsens as it gets colder. A typical electrolyte conducts a fourth as much at minus 5 degrees C as it does at 55 C. Little by little EVs, in normal to cold climates, will experience this problem.

California plans to have over 25 million such vehicles in the not too distant future. In fact, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plans to ban sales of new, gas-powered passenger cars and trucks in California by 2035.

The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections or the certain increased rates they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it, of course. Biden’s idea that they can is just another of his politically-correct illusions.

Also ignored is the direct cost to the consumer of buying EVs. A new study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative concluded that it will probably be more than a decade before EVs will be price-competitive with fossil fuel-powered cars.

The main reason for this is the lithium-ion batteries used in EVs, which account for about one-third of the cost of the vehicle, according to the MIT study. Just do the math: lithium-ion battery packs used in EVs cost anywhere from $175 to $300 per kilowatt-hour (KWh). A midrange EV typically has a 60 KWh battery pack. So, taking, say, a battery at the average cost per KWh ($237.5 per KWh), that would cost $14,250 just for the car’s batteries.

The hope is to get the battery price down to $100 per KWh by 2025. But the MIT study explains that even meeting that price target by 2030 would require material costs to remain constant for the next 10 years while global demand for these batteries is expected to skyrocket. How likely is that, Joe?

And talk about heavy! Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The lithium-ion battery in your cell phones weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds.

Biden is apparently also unconcerned that China controls most of the lithium and cobalt needed to produce batteries and they are often produced with child labor and near-slave labor, and with practically no health, safety or environmental safeguards. But then, the Biden family has been heavily invested in China, so perhaps they have a financial stake in this too.

Joe tells us that he will work to develop a new fuel economy standard that goes beyond what the Obama/Biden administration put in place. But the fuel economy standards brought on by Obama led to lighter weight and less safe vehicles. As we explained in our April 7th America Out Loud article, “Trump Administration Overturns Unsafe Obama Automobile Standards:”

“The Obama administration was effectively in partnership with overzealous environmental groups who never cared about public safety or economics. The long-term goal was simply to eliminate the use of fossil fuels at all costs.”

And Biden says he will go beyond the dangerous Obama-Biden standard.

And finally, Joe is either naïve or ignorant when it comes to electric vehicle tax credits. As we explained in our America Out Loud January 1, 2020 article, “A Rough Road Ahead For Electric Cars,”

“Up until now, the EV tax credit was granted on an honor system with no required affidavits to prove the credit was actually earned. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) recently reported that of 239,422 EV tax credits claimed between 2014 and 2018, it identified 16,510 as potentially erroneous. Some are outright frauds; others are to second owners who do not qualify or those leasing vehicles who also do not qualify. Worse yet a Congressional Research Service study showed that 80% of all EV tax credits go to households with incomes exceeding $100,000. Truly a wealth redistribution in the wrong direction that liberals should not like.”

Note: Dr. Lehr, the senior author of this article, discussed how Joe Biden’s energy and climate plan is “sheer insanity” on the Lars Larsen Show on October 23, 2020. You can listen to the 7-minute interview here.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Was It Really The Wettest Day?

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | November 5, 2020

Saturday 3 October was the wettest day for UK-wide rainfall since records began in 1891, Met Office researchers have said.

The downpour followed in the wake of Storm Alex and saw an average of 31.7mm (1.24ins) of rain across the entire UK.

The deluge was enough to exceed the capacity of Loch Ness – the largest lake in the UK by volume – the researchers added.

The previous record wettest day was 29 August 1986.

No doubt this will be wheeled out at the end of the year by the Met Office to bolster its “extreme weather” propaganda. But was it really the wettest day? How do we know?

Quite simply, we don’t, because the Met Office have never published a database of UK daily rainfall. Instead we are expected to take their word for it. Would you trust a company claiming that it had just made record profits, when it had never published any accounts? Of course not.

We also know that the Met Office has recently included several high altitude sites in its rainfall database, which have inevitably skewed upwards rainfall totals.

However, although they do not publish UK daily rainfall data, we do have daily data from the England & Wales Precipitation Series back to 1931. This series categorically shows that October 3rd was not a record, nor anywhere close.

Rainfall totalled 28.48mm on that day, well below the record of 43.23mm which fell in August 1986. Last month’s “record” was in fact only the tenth wettest day.

Even the England & Wales series is of limited value, as it still only has 90 years of data. There will undoubtedly have been many other extremely wet days earlier.

In fact, as the Met Office admits, the rainfall on 3rd October was not particularly intense anywhere, simply widespread across the whole country.

For instance, Oxfordshire was one of the wettest spots in England, and they had about 60mm that day:

However, even at Oxford, such a total was far from being unprecedented:

To be fair, Scotland got a real drenching that day, which may have tilted the UK figures up from the England & Wales ones. However, as I have frequently pointed out, Scotland has become wetter in recent decades, but that does not mean that the rest of the UK has.

The Met Office’s Mark McCarthy gives us the usual weasel words:

“We can’t make any definitive statements specifically about the attribution of this particular event on October 3,” said Dr McCarthy.

“There’s a general expectation that under our warming climate, we would expect to see increases in some types of extreme rainfall and rainfall events and we’re expecting to have wetter winters overall, we could expect increases in these types of extremes.”

If what he says is true, we would expect to see a pattern of increasingly extreme wet weather in England & Wales, and not just Scotland. The fact is that there is no such pattern, either in these intense daily events, or for that matter monthly totals.

Clearly therefore his theory holds no water.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Global Cooling will kill us all!

By Andy May | Watts Up With That? | November 5, 2020

As Angus McFarlane shows in a 2018 well researched web post (McFarlane, 2018), some 65% of the peer-reviewed climate papers, that offered an opinion, published between 1965 and 1979 predicted that the global cooling seen at the time would continue. He references and is supported by a Notrickszone post by Kenneth Richard (Richard, 2016).

Attempts to erase the “global cooling scare” from the internet by the notorious William Connolley, who has rewritten 5,428 Wikipedia articles in a vain attempt to change history, failed. As James Delingpole explains in The Telegraph, Connolley systematically turned Wikipedia into a man-made global warming advocacy machine (Delingpole, 2009). He rewrote articles on global warming, the greenhouse effect, climate models and on global cooling. He tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In the Wikipedia pages he trashed famous climate scientists who were skeptical of man-made global warming like Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. He also blocked people from correcting his lies.

William Connolley is friends with Michael Mann and his Hockey Team, which includes Phil Jones and Raymond Bradley. He is also a cofounder of the alarmist website Obviously, Connolley made sure that Mann and Bradley received glowing praise on Wikipedia until he was fired in 2009 and removed as a Wikipedia administrator (Delingpole, 2009).

We are not surprised that Connolley shows up as a co-author on the peer-reviewed paper, “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in BAMS, written by Thomas Peterson, William Connolley and John Fleck (Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck, 2008). The paper is nonsense and made no difference because facts are stubborn things. That the paper passed peer-review illustrates how corrupt climate science has become. The paper begins with this:

“There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.” (Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck, 2008)

Figure 1. The U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia global average temperature reconstruction since 1850. It shows, like other reconstructions, global cooling of about 0.09°C (0.16°F) from 1944 to 1977.

The global cooling scare of the 1960s and 1970s did exist, both climate scientists and the public were afraid that the global cooling trend, that began in the 1940s (see Figure 1), would continue and the world would turn very cold, maybe even return to a glacial period like the one that ended about 11,700 years ago at the beginning of the Holocene Epoch.

The Peterson, et al. paper carefully cherry picks 71 papers and claims that only seven papers between 1965 and 1979 disagreed with the “consensus” position that global warming would occur in the future. They found 20 that took a neutral position and 44 that agreed with the global warming consensus. But the world was cooling then and had been since 1944. Kenneth Richard researched this and expanded the time frame to 1960 to 1989. Richard found 285 papers that disagreed with the “consensus” position that global warming would occur in the future (Richard, 2016).

Of these 285 papers, 156 discussed the cooling since 1940 and predicted future cooling. Seven tried to show that CO2 might be causing the cooling. A complete list of papers can be downloaded from Kenneth Richard’s post. The alarmists fudged the numbers to show a 97% consensus that man caused global warming, then they fudged the global cooling consensus in the same way.

Angus McFarlane took the databases created by Kenneth Richard and Peterson, et al., merged them (there were 16 duplicates) and then did an independent search of his own. He found two additional relevant papers that were not already in one of the two databases. Then he eliminated the papers that were outside the original Peterson et al. period of 1965-1979.

McFarlane’s database is smaller than Richard’s and only has 190 relevant papers, but this is 119 more than Peterson, et al. found and it covers the same period. McFarlane’s review of the papers found that 86 predicted future cooling, 58 were neutral, and 46 predicted warming. Of the 86 cooling papers, 30 predicted a possible new “ice age.” Strictly speaking, we are in an ice age, what they mean is a new glacial period where ice advances to a major new maximum extent like 19,000 years ago in the last major glacial maximum. The 86 cooling papers are 45% of the total. If we ignore the neutral papers, like John Cook, et al. did (Cook, et al., 2013) in his 97% consensus study, then cooling papers are 65% of the papers that offered an opinion. Using Cook’s rules, we can comfortably claim there was a global cooling consensus in 1979.

However, once the mid-twentieth century cooling trend reversed and became a warming trend, it did not take long for the “consensus” to reverse as well. The global surface temperature trend changed to warming (about 0.017°C/year as shown in the graph) around 1977, and the peer-reviewed climate papers from 1977-1979 changed to a ratio of 52% warming to 48% cooling, a bare majority of warming papers, ignoring the neutral papers. During the 1980s the papers quickly changed to pro-warming.

The press in the mid-seventies reported that a consensus of climate scientists believed the world was cooling and the cooling would continue (Struck, 2014). Articles on the cooling consensus appeared in Newsweek, Time, the New York Times, and National Geographic. A landmark story by Peter Gwynne in Newsweek April 28, 1975 was typical (Gwynne, 1975). It was entitled “The Cooling World.” In the overheated style of Newsweek, the article begins, “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically.” Later in the article Gwynne breathlessly explains “… the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. … and the resulting famines could be catastrophic.” Gwynne’s cited sources include the National Academy of Sciences, Murray Mitchell (NOAA), George Kukla (Columbia University), James McQuigg (NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment) (Gwynne, 1975).

George Kukla of Columbia University and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory did not change his view of a long-term global cooling trend, like many of his colleagues did. When he sadly passed away May 31, 2014, he still believed that a new massive glacial period would begin in the future, perhaps 5,000 years from now. Javier Vinós, in his blog post on “The next glaciation,” (Vinós, 2018) predicts that the next major glaciation will begin in 1500 to 2500 years. It is fortunate that both predictions are far in the future.

When the next global cooling period begins, as it inevitably will, will climate scientists write more global cooling papers? Why should we believe climate scientists who say the world is warming dangerously now, when just 50 or 60 years ago they were saying it was dangerously cooling? A reasonable question. What direct evidence has arisen that convinced them to reverse course? We had a consensus for cooling when the world was cooling, now we have a consensus for warming and the world is warming. Is that all there is to it? Both are hypotheses, what makes them become facts or theories?

Hypotheses are speculative ideas. A real scientist asks, “Is that so? Tell me why you think that.” A rigorous scientific process must be used to demonstrate why observed events, such as global warming or global cooling, are occurring. To show they are potentially dangerous takes even more work.

Consensus is a political thing. The public forms a consensus opinion, then vote and make laws or rules that reflect the opinion. In science, we first form a hypothesis or idea that explains an observed natural phenomenon, such as warming or cooling. The next step is to attempt to disprove it. If we fail the idea survives. We publish what we did, and others attempt to disprove the idea, if they fail to disprove it, it survives. Once this has gone on long enough, the idea becomes a theory. A scientific theory simply survives, it is never proven, it must always be subject to testing.

We mentioned above that seven of the papers examined by Angus McFarlane and Kenneth Richard suggested that CO2 might be causing global cooling. A good example is Sherwood Idso’s, 1984 paper in the Journal of Climatology. The paper is entitled “What if Increases in Atmospheric CO2 Have an inverse Greenhouse Effect?” (Idso, 1984). Idso speculates that additional CO2 will encourage plants to move into more arid areas, because additional CO2 causes plants to use less water per pound of growth. Idso thinks that this might change Earth’s albedo (reflectivity) in such a way as to lower temperatures. In a similar way, Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi speculated that additional CO2 would increase humidity in the tropics and thus cloud cover (Lindzen & Choi, 2011). Extremely small changes in average cloud cover can have a large cooling effect during the daytime.

Peter Webster presents an interesting discussion of Sherwood Idso’s work in his Climatic Change paper, “The Carbon Dioxide/Climate Controversy: Some Personal Comments on Two Recent Publications” (Webster, 1984). Besides an interesting discussion of the emotions involved in the human-caused climate change debate, we can see from Webster’s discussion, and Idso’s paper, how little we really know about the impact of additional CO2 in the real world. Tiny changes in Earth’s albedo, whether due to cloud cover or the distribution of plants can make a huge difference.

Empirical estimates of ECS (the change in air temperature due to doubling the CO2 concentration) have never matched theoretical calculations from climate models. The empirical values (like Idso’s or Lindzen and Choi’s) are normally about half of model estimates, and can be negative, like Idso’s. This is likely because the models are missing something and possible future changes in albedo due to changing cloud and plant cover are likely candidates.

This post is condensed and modified from my new book, Politics and Climate Change: A History.

To download the post bibliography click here.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

We Are Pawns In A Bigger Game Than We Realize

By Chris Martenson | PeakProsperity | October 30, 2020

“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others… Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well.”

 ~ Sherlock Holmes – The Adventures of Silver Blaze

Is it possible to make sense out of nonsense?

So much these days is an incoherent mess. It’s complete nonsense.

Page 1 excitedly beams about a glorious rebound in GDP. Yay economic growth!

Page 2 worryingly notes the near complete failure of Siberian arctic ice to reform during October and that hurricane Zeta (so many storms this year we’re now into the Greek alphabet!) has made punishing landfall.

Each is a narrative. Each has its own inner logic.

But they simply do not have any external coherence to each other. It’s nonsensical to be excited about rising economic growth while also concerned that each new unit of growth takes the planet further past a critical red line.

These narratives are incompatible. So which one should we pick?

Well, in the end, reality always has the final say. As Guy McPherson states: Nature bats last.

So better we choose to follow the narrative that hews closest to what reality actually is, vs what we desperately want it to be.

‘They’ Don’t Care About Us

While issues like climate change and economic growth may be difficult to fully grasp and unravel, direct threats to our lives &/or livelihoods are much more concrete and something we can react to and resist.

Such immediate and direct threats are now fully in play and, once again, they’re accompanied by narratives that are completely at odds with each other. I’m speaking of Covid and the ways in which our national and global managers are choosing to respond (or not).

It’s a truly incoherent mess about which both social media and the increasingly irrelevant media are working quite hard to misinform us.

The mainstream narrative about Covid-19, in the West, is this:

  • It’s a quite deadly and novel disease
  • There are no effective treatments
  • Sadly, no double-blind placebo controlled trials exist to support some of the wild claims out there about various off-patent, cheap and widely available supplements and drugs
  • Health authorities care about saving lives
  • They care so much, in fact, that along with politicians they’ve decided to entirely shut down economies
  • There’s a huge second wave rampaging across the US and Europe and there’s nothing we can do to limit it except shut down businesses and people’s ability to travel and gather
  • You need to fear this virus and its associated disease
  • All we can do is wait for a vaccine

The alternative narrative, one that I’ve uncovered after 9 months of almost daily research and reporting, is this:

  • It’s not an especially dangerous disease and it’s certainly not novel
  • There is a huge assortment of very effective, cheap and widely-available preventatives and treatments including (but not limited to)
    • Vitamin D
    • Ivermectin
    • Hydroxychloroquine
    • Zinc
    • Selenium
    • Famotidine (Pepcid)
    • Melatonin
  • Use of a combination of these mostly OTC supplements could reasonably be expected to drop the severity of illness and the already low mortality rate by 90% or (probably) more
  • Western health authorities have shown either zero interest in the results of studies mainly conducted in poorer nations on these combination therapies or…
  • They have actively run studies designed to fail so that these cheap, effective therapies could be dismissed or…
  • Set up proper studies but which started late, have immensely long study periods and most likely won’t be done before a vaccine is hastily rushed through development.

By the way – every single one of my assertions and claims is backed by links and supporting documentation from scientific and clinical trials and studies. I am not conjecturing here; I am recounting the summary of ten months’ worth of inquiry.

The conclusion I draw from my narrative (vs. theirs) is that we can no longer assume that the public health or saving lives has anything to do with explaining or understanding the actions of these health “managers” (I cannot bring myself to use the word authorities).

After we eliminate the impossible – which is that somehow these massive, well-funded bodies have missed month after month of accumulating evidence in support of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, NAC, zinc, selenium and doxycycline/azithromycin – what remains must be the truth.

As improbable as it seems, the only conclusion we’re left with is that the machinery of politics, money and corporate psychopathy is suppressing life saving treatments because these managers have other priorities besides public health and saving lives.

This is a terribly difficult conclusion, because it means suspending so much that we hold dear. Things like the notion that people are basically good. The idea that the government generally means well. The thought that somehow when the chips are down and a crisis is afoot, good will emerge and triumph over evil.

I’m sorry to say, the exact opposite of all of that has emerged as true.

Medical doctors in the UK NHS system purposely used toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine far too late in the disease cycle to be of any help simply to ‘make a point’ about hydroxychloroquine. They rather desperately wanted that drug to fail, so they made it fail.

After deliberately setting their trial up for failure, they concluded: “Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help, and it even makes things worse.”

Note that in order to be able to make this claim, they had to be willing to cause harm — even to let people die. What kind of health official does that?

Not one who actually has compassion, a heart, or functioning level of sympathy.  It’s an awful conclusion but it’s what remains after we eliminate the impossible.

Getting Past The Emotional Toll

Science has proven that cheap, safe and significantly protective compounds exist to limit both Covid-related death and disease severity.

Yet all of the main so-called health authorities in the major western countries are nearly completely ignoring, if not outright banning, these safe, cheap and effective compounds.

This is crazy-making for independent observers like me (and you) because the data is so clear. It’s irrefutable at this point. These medicines and treatments not only work, but work really, really well.

However most people will be unable to absorb the data, let alone move beyond it to wrestle with the implications.  Why? Because such data is belief-shattering.  Absorbing this information is not an intellectual process; it’s an emotional one.

I don’t know why human nature decided to invest so much in developing a tight wall around the belief systems that control our actions and thoughts. But it has.

I’m sure there was some powerful evolutionary advantage. One that’s now being hijacked daily by social media AI programs to nudge us in desired directions. One that’s being leveraged by shabby politicians, hucksters, fake gurus, and con men to steer advantage away from the populace and towards themselves.

The neural wiring of beliefs is what it is. We have to recognize that and move on.

Some people will be much faster in their adjustment process than others.

To move past the deeply troubling information laid out before us requires us to be willing to endure a bit of turbulence. It’s the only way.

For you to navigate these troubling times safely and successfully, you’ll need to see as clearly as possible the true nature of the game actually being played. To see what the rules really are – not what you’ve been told they are, or what you wish or hope they are.

The Manipulation Underway

The data above strongly supports the conclusion that our national health managers don’t actually care about public health generally or your health specifically.

If indeed true, then the beliefs preventing most people from accepting this likely include:

  • Wanting to believe that people are good (a biggie for most people)
  • Trust and faith in the medical system (really big)
  • Faith in authority (ginormous)

There are many other operative belief systems I could also list. But this is sufficient to get the ball rolling.

Picking just one, how hard would it be for someone to let go of, say, trust in the medical system?

That would be pretty hard in most cases.

First not trusting the medical system might mean having to wonder if a loved one might have died unnecessarily while being treated. Or realizing that you’re now going to have to research the living daylights out of every medical decision before agreeing to it. Or worrying that your medications might be more harmful to you over the long haul than helpful (which is true in many more cases than most appreciate). It might mean having your personal heroes dinged by suspicion — perhaps even your father or mother who worked in the medical profession. It would definitely require a complete reorientation away from being able to trust anything you read in a newspaper, or see on TV, about new pharmaceutical “breakthroughs”.

Trust, which is safe and warm and comforting, then turns into skepticism; which is lonelier and insists upon active mental involvement.

But, as always, hard work comes with benefits — with a healthy level of skepticism and involvement, the families of those recruited into the deadly UK RECOVERY trial could have looked at the proposed doses of HCQ (2,400 mg on day one! Toxic!) and said, “Not now, not ever!” and maybe have saved the life of their loved one.

Look at that tangled mess of undesirables that comes with unpacking that one belief: regret, uncertainty, shame, doubt, fallen idols, and vastly more additional effort. Are all up for grabs when we decide to look carefully at the actions of our national health managers during Covid.

Which is why most people simply choose not to look. It’s too hard.

I get it. I have a lot of compassion for why people choose not to go down that path. It can get unpleasant in a hurry.

But, just like choosing to ignore a nagging chest pain, turning away in denial has its own consequences.

The Coming ‘Great Reset’

My coverage of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) and Covid-19 (the associated disease) has led me to uncover some things that have made me deeply uncomfortable about our global and national ‘managers’. Shameful things, really. Scary things in their implications for what we might reasonably expect (or not expect, more accurately) from the future.

Once we get past the shock of seeing just how patently corrupt they’ve been, we have to ask both What’s next? and What should I do?

After all, you live in a system whose managers are either too dumb to understand the Vitamin D data (very unlikely) or have decided that they’d rather not promote it to the general populace for some reason. It’s a ridiculously safe vitamin with almost zero downside and virtually unlimited upside.

Either they’re colossally dumb, or this is a calculated decision. They’re not dumb. So we have to ask: What’s the calculation being performed here? It’s not public safety. It’s not your personal health. So… What is it?

This is our line of questioning and observation. It’s like the short story by Arthur Conan Doyle in Silver Blaze that many of us informally know as “the case of the dog that didn’t bark”. As the story goes, because of a missing clue – a dog who remained silent as a murder was committed – this conclusion could be drawn: the dog was already familiar with the killer!

The silence around Vitamin D alone is extremely telling. It is the pharmacological dog that did not bark.

One true inference suggests others. Here, too, we can deduce from the near total silence around Vitamin D that the health managers would prefer not to talk about it. They don’t want people to know. That much is painfully clear.

Such lack of promotion (let alone appropriate study) of safe, effective treatments is a thread that, if tugged, can unravel the whole rug. The silence tells us everything we need to know.

Do they want people to suffer and die? I don’t know. My belief systems certainly hope not. Perhaps the death and suffering are merely collateral damage as they pursue a different goal — money, power, politics? Simply the depressing result of a contentious election year? More than that?

We’ve now reached the jumping off point where we may well find out just how far down the rabbit hole goes.

A massive grab for tighter control over the global populace is now being fast-tracked at the highest levels. Have you heard of the Great Reset yet?

If not, you soon will.

In Part 2: The Coming ‘Great Reset’ we lay out everything we know so far about the multinational proposal to transform nearly every aspect of global industry, commerce, trade, and social structure.

If you read on, be ready and willing to let go of cherished beliefs and to suspend what you know to be true. Because none of us has that in hand. It’s going to be a wild ride from here.

Something very big is afoot and I suspect that Covid-19 is merely an excuse providing cover for a much bigger power grab over the world’s wealth and peoples.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

November 5, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment