Aletho News


Britain’s ban on China’s global television network is a hostile and misguided move that will lead to retaliation from Beijing

By Tom Fowdy | RT | February 4, 2021

The UK communications regulator Ofcom has revoked the license of China Global Television Network (CGTN), banning it from broadcasting in the country. The channel, which was due to set up its new European headquarters in London, is accused of being editorially controlled by the country’s ruling Communist Party and thus violating broadcasting rules.

The UK has overplayed its hand with this vindictive action that demonstrates it is intent on following America’s anti-China foreign policy. When the strikeback comes, it will be more than just the BBC in Beijing’s crosshairs.

Just minutes after the Ofcom ban came through, China’s Foreign Ministry has asked the BBC to “apologise” for a report concerning Covid-19. This is a sign of things to come. In fact, it mirrors the same pattern of events from a year ago when Mike Pompeo, then US secretary of state, announced restrictions on Chinese media operating in the United States. This resulted in China expelling American journalists after having asked the Wall Street Journal to apologize for its coverage. The move, however, is clearly a political one, and undoubtedly a huge provocation in UK-China ties, and one which is bound to have enormous consequences, especially for the BBC’s content and coverage within China itself. The announcement comes conspicuously just a week after Beijing had declared non-recognition of UK British National Overseas (BNO) passports over controversy surrounding a migration plan for Hong Kongers.

And here’s what Britain doesn’t seem to realize. Whilst it is true that the media environment within China is tightly controlled, reciprocity matters nonetheless. The BBC is still operating and broadcasting in China, even if its reports are subject to some censorship. As a result, it is almost guaranteed that Beijing will take some form of reciprocal action, and given the BBC’s incredibly politicised coverage of China of late, it seems untenable that they wouldn’t.

Pompeo last year launched an assault on Chinese media operating in the United States. He implemented visa restrictions, demanded they reduce their numbers and made them register as diplomatic overseas missions. What even he didn’t do, however, despite his fanatical approach to Beijing, was kick them out completely or deny them a presence in America. He understood at the very least that freedom of speech was a staple of American values and that irrespective of differences between political systems, how a country’s media was treated was a medium of diplomacy. Therefore reciprocity, the idea of “tit for tat,” matters. Pompeo knew if he pushed too hard, American journalism within China, already walking on eggshells, would be finished altogether.

Not surprisingly, China retaliated. However, its diplomatic style was indirect, as opposed to explicit. Not long after Pompeo’s announcement, Beijing took issue with the Wall Street Journal, over a headline describing the country as “the sick man of Asia,” which it deemed to be derogatory,  and demanded the publication apologise. The Journal did not, and so Beijing expelled a number of its reporters as punishment.

The timing of this UK-Sino row is not a coincidence. Beijing is already frustrated with the BBC behind the scenes, but because of diplomatic considerations chose to do nothing about it. As the above illustrates, a nation cannot simply expel journalists without justification – even China knows this. To do so is to violate a norm. History is already repeating itself.

However, Beijing is increasingly unhappy with the BBC. The broadcaster has been persistent in driving forwards the narrative on issues such as Xinjiang, including commissioning a report on allegations of forced labour which led to US sanctions against the cotton sector, and then yesterday producing a graphic set of interviews whereby Chinese authorities were accused of systematic sexual abuse of the Uyghur minority. For the sake of its relationship with London, Beijing has to date acted with restraint.

However, because the UK has acted first, China now has a political casus belli to take retaliatory actions targeting journalists who consistently broadcast unfavourable or misrepresentative stories about its internal affairs. The BBC is unquestionably on the top of that list, and Beijing’s demand for an apology from it shows what lies ahead.

Inevitably, the BBC will refuse and insist that its coverage is accurate and impartial, as it always does. Thus, like what happened with the Wall Street Journal a year ago, Beijing will close the doors on them in some way, reciprocating Britain’s action in banning CGTN. This may involve expelling a correspondent or removing the BBC’s right to appear on Chinese television altogether.

It is likely to go a lot wider than tit-for-tat media strikes. This sets UK-China relations on a collision course, affirming a growing view in Beijing that the UK is now a hostile country, intent on following America’s anti-China foreign policy. This will inevitably involve China subjecting Britain to the same harsh treatment it has meted out to Australia and Canada, involving sanctions on goods and the like.

Given that there were other options before banning, the UK has definitely overplayed its hand with this. Even Pompeo, of all people, knew better than to ban CGTN completely.

Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Was Fraud in the 2020 Election Inconceivable?

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF |February 4, 2021

One of the fascinating aspects of the 2020 presidential election fraud brouhaha was the mainstream media’s certainty that there was no fraud, without even performing the semblance of an investigation. The media mindset was based on the concept of inconceivability — that it was just inconceivable that anything like that could happen in the United States. That sort of thing only happens in foreign countries, the inconceivable mindset holds.

Yet, consider all the things that the the U.S. deep state did, in secret, to prevent Salvador Allende from becoming president of Chile.

In the run-up to the 1964 Chilean presidential election, the CIA secretly spent almost $6 million in support of Allende’s opponent, Eduardo Frei. According to Wikipedia, the “CIA considered its role in the victory of Frei a great success.” The CIA concluded that Frei would not have won without the secret assistance of the CIA.

What business did the U.S. deep state have embroiling itself in a foreign election? It held that Allende, as a socialist or a communist, would pose a grave threat to U.S. “national security” if he were elected president of Chile.

Six years later, Allende ran again and achieved a plurality of votes. Since the Chilean Constitution required a majority, the election was thrown into the hands of the Chilean parliament.

The CIA took its stash of secret U.S. taxpayer money and used it in an attempt to bribe the members of the Chilean parliament to not elect Allende.

At the same time, the CIA did everything it could to instigate a military coup, notwithstanding the fact that a coup would violate Chile’s constitution. The CIA took the position that the Chilean constitution was irrelevant, given that an Allende presidency would pose a threat to “national security,” both in Chile and the United States. Given that the U.S. Constitution itself did not authorize foreign military coups, the CIA’s position was that it was irrelevant as well since “national security,” the CIA believed, was sovereign and supreme over the Constitution.

The overall commander of the Chilean armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, balked at the CIA’s coup proposal. His position was that the Chilean constitution controlled. Since it did not provide a coup as a way to remove a democratically elected president, the Chilean armed forces would not participate in the U.S. deep state’s illegal scheme.

To accelerate the possibility of a coup, the CIA conspired to violently kidnap Schneider. During the kidnapping attempt, Schneider was shot dead. (No CIA official or any other U.S. official has ever been brought to justice for the murder of Rene. Schneider.)

The kidnapping and murder of an innocent man ended up boomeranging for the U.S. deep state. The Chilean people were so outraged over Schneider’s murder that the Chilean parliament rejected the CIA’s bribes and ended up electing Allende president.

The U.S. deep state wasn’t finished. For the next three years, the CIA did everything it could to stir up economic chaos in the country in order to encourage people to desire a military coup to “save” the country. For example, the CIA secretly instigated a national truckers’ strike in the hope of preventing food from reaching the Chilean populace.

Finally, on September 11, 1973, amidst the economic crisis produced by Allende’s socialist economic policies and the CIA’s interventionist policies, and with the encouragement and support of the U.S. deep state, the Chilean deep state initiated a military coup in which the national-security branch of the national government went on the attack against the executive branch of the government. In what would prove to be an eerie confirmation of former President Dwight Eisenhower about the dangers that a “military-industrial complex” poses to a democracy, Chile’s military-intelligence branch of the government prevailed over Allende’s executive branch, leaving him dead.

Chile’s national-security establishment, again with the full support of the U.S. national-security establishment, proceeded to take full control over the government and rounded up, incarcerated, tortured, raped, sexually abused, executed, or disappeared over 50,000 supporters of Allende.

Now, it’s very true that it’s possible that there was no fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. But given all that the U.S. deep state did to prevent Allende from being president of Chile, can we really say that it is inconceivable that the U.S. deep state would do whatever it deemed necessary to prevent a U.S. presidential candidate that it deemed to be a threat to “national security” from becoming president?

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , | 2 Comments

Why Always Israel? Only One Country Matters to Congress and the Media

By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 4, 2021

The job of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations must have some kind of curse on it as it seems to attract a type of woman who seeks to prove her suitability by running up a tally of how many wars she can start and how many people she can kill. One recalls fondly Bill Clinton’s monstrous Madeleine Albright, who famously declared the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children as “worth it” due to the sanctions that Washington had imposed and enforced. And then there was Barack Obama’s darling Samantha Power, who was the spokesperson for the completely unnecessary slaughter of Syrians and Libyans to bring them democracy. And, most recently, we have had Nikki Haley, who didn’t start her own war but kept the ones ongoing during her watch on the boil while also taking on the task of being the most strident defender of Israel’s war crimes.

And now we have Honest Joe Biden’s nominee to be the U.N. ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. She is predictably black and is a career diplomat who ended up as head of the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs. Upon retirement in 2017, she took a position, predictably, with the Albright Stonebridge Group in Washington. The Albright in the name comes from Madeleine and the Group is where many Democratic Party establishment foreign policy types wind up. Thomas-Greenfield might not be a drama queen like Nikki Haley or evil incarnate like Albright or Samantha Power, but she demonstrated in her confirmation hearing before the Senate that she knows the lines she has to speak as well as anyone in Washington.

Thomas-Greenfield dutifully spouted the usual cant relating to the Palestinians, which means that she did not mention them at all and is completely indifferent to the gross violations of their human rights by Israel. In response to several queries from legislators about how she would work to fend off international criticism against Israeli policies, she unleashed an attack against the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (B.D.S.) movement which criticizes Israel’s human rights record and urges people to support Palestinian rights by pressuring Israel’s economy through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. It deliberately eschews violence or punishing ordinary Israelis for the actions of their government and it’s economic approach is a tactic that was used successfully against the apartheid South African regime in the 1980s.

One assumes that Thomas-Greenfield, as a black American diplomat who was active when South Africa adopted majority rule, is fully aware of the fact that Israeli apartheid backed by an army of occupation that does not hesitate to shoot to kill is more pervasive than the South African version ever was. She may even be aware that what Israel does is driven by racism and amounts to genocide. Nevertheless, she told the Senators “[B.D.S.] verges on anti-Semitic, and it’s important that they not be allowed to have a voice at the U.N., and I intend to work against that… I look forward to standing with Israel, standing against the unfair targeting of Israel, the relentless resolutions proposed against Israel unfairly.” In short, Thomas-Greenfield sounded more than a little like Nikki Haley, who used to amuse the U.N. General Assembly with her homilies in defense of the Jewish state that culminated in U.S. withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, refugee agency (UNRWA), and its cultural organization (UNESCO) over claims that they all had an anti-Israel bias.

There should be no question but that the friends of Israel constitute the most powerful foreign policy lobby. It’s ability to shift policy in its favor is unmatched by any other organization that promotes the interests of a foreign nation at the expense of the United States itself. No other nation comes close to having the power to actually write legislation that is then approved by Congress while also influencing decision making in the White House. No other country avoids accountability for its actions either among politicians or in the media to anywhere near the same extent as Israel. If anyone doubts that that is true, it is only necessary to review the recent confirmation hearings of Biden appointees, where foreign policy discussions are limited to bashing China and Russia followed almost immediately by the question “And what have you done for Israel lately?”

Politicians are quite aware that giving the wrong answer on Israel can be fatal for one’s career. In many congressional districts the training of lawmakers begins early, with representatives of the hundreds of Israel Lobby affiliates interviewing potential candidates on their views relating to the Jewish state. In many cases, attempts are made to get possible candidates to sign statements affirming that they hold the correct views on Israel versus its neighbors. The sensitivity towards Israeli and Jewish issues must continue after one is elected, resulting in questions in public fora like confirmation hearings. It never hurts to advertise one’s loyalty to Israel early and often.

Questions about Israel inevitably also came up in the Senate confirmation hearing for Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Blinken is Jewish, a confirmed Zionist, and now heads a State Department where his deputy and political affairs chief are both Jewish women hardliners who basically share his views. Biden, Blinken and company advocate policies in the Middle East that are definitely pleasing to the Israeli government, such as de facto continuing a hard line with Iran.

In a press statement last year Blinken confirmed the outlines of the Biden Administration relationship with Israel as follows: “You can count on Joe Biden to make sure Israel has what it needs to defend itself, to honor the bipartisanship traditions of U.S. support for Israel, to safeguard, not put at risk, Israel’s future as a Jewish, and democratic state. Joe Biden has spoken out strongly and stood strongly against the B.D.S. movement. He’s also been very clear that he would not tie military assistance to Israel to things like annexation or other decisions by the Israeli government with which we might disagree.”

In other words, Israel has a free hand to do whatever it wants and there will be no pushback from the Biden White House in terms of the only thing that matters – the billions of dollars in “military assistance” the Jewish state receives each year. Oh, and Blinken surely realizes that while Israel is Jewish by law it is ipso facto hardly democratic.

Blinken’s apparent first telephone call to a Foreign Secretary counterpart was to Gabi Ashkenazi of Israel. Their warm and fuzzy exchange was tweeted, with Blinken enthusing “Great speaking with @Gabi_Ashkenazi today to discuss the steadfast partnership between the U.S. and Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct, and I look forward to working with the Foreign Minister and others toward our common goals.” Ashkenazi replied “I had a warm call with @secBlinken & affirmed Israel’s commitment to the robust Israeli-US strategic partnership. I welcomed very much the POTUS commitment to IL security.”

The point is that pandering to Israel as part of the political process in the United States has become part of the DNA of both major parties. Trump was shameless in his gifts to the Jewish state all through his four years and Biden promises to deliver more of the same. But the really bad news for Americans is the fact that the wag the dog relationship with Israel ties the United States into failed policies in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. It is time for the federal government to stop focusing on doing favors for Israel and instead start talking about how the policies that mandate force projection in the Middle East to protect the Jewish state are not really working out very well for the American people. When that becomes clear to the public, change will come.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 4 Comments

‘CBD supports the immune system’: Austrian clinic reports promising results from cannabis trial on Covid-19 ICU patients

RT | February 4, 2021

Researchers in Austria’s Klagenfurt Clinic are reporting promising results from CBD trials on Covid-19 ICU patients that show reduced inflammation and quicker recovery times.

Cannabidiol or CBD oil was used as part of the overall course of treatment for Covid-19 patients in the hospital’s ICU over the course of three weeks.

Rudolf Likar, head of intensive care medicine at the clinic, started by administering a dose of 200 milligrams of CBD per day which later increased to 300 milligrams.

“We have seen that the inflammation parameters in the blood go down and people leave the hospital faster than the comparison group,” Likar said. “CBD supports the immune system.”

CBD oil’s anti-inflammatory effects reportedly surpass those of other widely used drugs because cannabidiol crosses the blood-brain barrier and staves off some of the dramatic neurological damage associated with so-called “long Covid.”

According to reports in Austrian media, Likar suspects the cannabidiol in CBD oil blocks the ACE2 receptor through which the SARS-CoV-2 virus gains access to human cells and begins self-replicating, with dire consequences for human health.

A study of the anti-inflammatory effects of CBD oil is ongoing at the Klagenfurt Clinic, but the results so far look promising.

“We are now evaluating the data and the data is looking relatively good. We’ll probably use this routinely now because it doesn’t have any side effects,” Likar said, adding that similar research into the efficacy of CBD oil in helping to treat Covid-19 is underway in Israel.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

UK COVID Conundrum: The Mysterious Case Of Disappearing Flu

By Banson Wilcot PhD | Principia Scientific | January 27, 2021

At the end of 2020 many statisticians, doctors and independent scientists noticed something amiss about this extraordinary year. The Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew.

Despite the media and government pandemic presentations, we need to step back and consider the larger picture.

Sometimes it is difficult to see the forest for the trees, but perhaps we have succumbed to seeing a single tree and ignoring the rest of the forest.

Is the fact that one virus has suddenly been given a name, Covid-19, (with wildly hyped media coverage) taken our focus off the overall reality of the annual flu season group of viruses? Has one name and media hype highjacked our lives?

With the 2019–2020 flu season, there have been a number of reports of Covid-19 illnesses in the UK and USA well before the end of 2019. Just today there was a report of Covid-19 illnesses in China as early as August, 2019. [1A]

Until the introduction of the PCR test for Covid-19 in late February, Covid-19 cases and deaths did not exist. This gives the impression that the virus appeared just then, while it was undoubtedly present much earlier as part of the flu season, from numerous anecdotal reports. Various reports indicate symptoms typical of Covid-19 in the U.S. as early as November–December, 2019 and likely even earlier.

With growing attention given to the virus and the increasing availability of PCR testing, we started receiving regular accounts of the number “cases” of the virus. Stepping back a bit and looking at general numbers and ignoring the contentious PCR accuracy regarding positive and negative cases, we see an overall pattern that is very similar to past flu seasons. Cases of flu-like illness generally start in October/November and last until March or April in the UK [1].

The observation can be made that this fairly well describes the 2019–2020 flu season, including Covid-19. The 2019–2020 Covid-19 death numbers appear as a spike because there was no PCR test until about the middle of the flu season, giving the impression that Covid-19 physically appeared late in the season. No, the test appeared late in the season. Despite the testing results, the UK government actually declared the pandemic over in March, but then, oddly, imposed a lockdown a week or two later.

The government declaration of the pandemic’s end can be considered innocently valid and devoid of politics. The advent of lockdowns and more could then be considered political. [So often, when an event occurs, the first observations prove to be the most honest, while the spin and changes come later.]

Much confusion has been generated by different accounting systems regarding illnesses and deaths. There are disparities in the cause of death, whether with the virus or without, and with an over reliance on the PCR test. In addition, many Covid-19 cases were diagnosed solely from symptoms, ignoring the fact that such symptoms are often seen during the flu season.

The observation that some people lose their sense of smell and taste with Covid-19 clearly ignores that these effects occur in every flu season, but now people are told that this is diagnostic for Covid-19. [Dogs are animals and can have spots, but all spotted animals are not dogs.]

We have always taken these symptoms in stride and happily waited until our senses returned. Suddenly, these symptoms are unique and diagnostic of Covid-19. It simply defies reality. If they suddenly reported that you could get a flesh-eating disease from a hang-nail, we would suddenly start considering every incipient hang-nail as a life-threatening event, when, in fact, they are not.

No careful lines have been defined to tell whether deaths have been due to a single virus, multiple viruses, comorbidities (conditions already burdening an individual’s health), or a virus with complications, such as pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia often has a chance to take hold when one’s lungs are compromised by a flu-type illness. [Note that subsequent pneumonia is not a comorbidity.] Curiously deaths from influenza in the US have recently dropped to about zero; more on this below. [2]

Making our understanding of illness and death in the UK and other regions more difficult are the inclusion of diagnoses determined solely by the PCR test and others solely by symptoms. It is very clear that the traditional symptoms of cold and influenza broadly overlap those of Covid-19, thus making definitive diagnoses very difficult. Add to this the purported rate of false positives from the PCR test (now +97% according to the WHO) [3] and accounting of nonlethal “cases” becomes what they call “problematic.”

To really eliminate the many possible confusions and conditions that can be placed on death rates and possible death causes, it is useful to step back and look at the overall death rate, from all causes, for a country or state. The focus here is on the UK, but the US also provides some guidance. [4]

First, the concept of a pandemic needs to be addressed. A pandemic is the  movement of a disease, bacterial or viral, that moves around the world and has a higher than normal damaging effect. Until recently this was described as a higher than normal mortality. The definition has been changed at WHO’s website such that the flu season is now a pandemic despite death rates being within a normal range. [5] (It is also curious that the definition of herd immunity originally included the benefits of natural and vaccinated immunity, but the definition now only includes vaccinated immunity. Very curious.)

Flu season viruses move around the world every year, largely deriving from farms in Southeast Asia where flu-type viruses are exchanged and hybridized between fish, pigs, and chickens and eventually transmitted to farmers, thus starting the next round of viruses for the annual newly-defined “pandemic.” From teaching Environmental Science, I learned that there has been an effort to break this chain of virus evolution by encouraging farmers to specialize in only one major livestock, thus decreasing viral exchanges between these species. This virus hybridization (mixing) is the source of the H#N# marker recombinations that vaccine labs try to detect early for each new flu season and then attempt to offer appropriate vaccines.

The flu season in the tropics is actually all year round and, because of the humidity, virus transmission is low but constant. However, in the more temperate regions, transmission blossoms when Fall arrives and people start spending more time indoors, in a relatively closed environment, and closer to each other.

It is a bit counter intuitive that humidity (which goes with warm temperatures) decreases transmission rates. It is a good deal in the tropics, sunlight on clear days kills viruses and humidity is always on the job. Small water droplets containing virus, from speaking, coughing, sneezing, and even breathing, tend to gain weight under humid conditions and fall to the ground more quickly than under dry conditions.

Flu season in the Southern hemisphere appears to mirror the Northern hemisphere, but flu viruses are likely introduced to the south by air travel during their summer and, thus, possibly starts and dilutes their six-month later flu season over a longer period.

For all of this, it is very difficult to see the forest for the tree (Covid-19, highlighted by the PCR test), but one statistic that sums up and ignores all the various causes of death and various biases in categories is the overall death rate of a country or state [4], such as the UK, which is a well-defined population with good reporting capabilities. [6]

There are some interesting aspects to death rates. Again, from Env. Sci. teaching, when a heat wave hits a city, as happened in Paris a number of years ago, the death rate rises as people succumb to the physiological burden of heat. However, after the heat wave is gone, the death rate tends to dip below normal for a time. This indicates that the heat wave took people who were already very frail and likely to die in the near future, in a couple of weeks or months, the old “one foot in the grave,” which is not an inaccurate description in many cases..

With cold snaps, there is also a spike in the death rate, but after it is over, there is no dip in the death rate, as it goes back to normal. This is because cold does not discriminate and kills all ages. Heat tends to impose a physiological burden on those already heavily burdened, but cold is a much simpler core temperature problem that is a critical problem for all ages.

That said, is there anything we can learn by comparing the death rates from the last year of “the Covid” and previous years? Focusing mainly on the UK as a single, well-defined population and putting aside all reporting bias and possible cause of death confusions, what do the overall death rates tell us?

It has been speculated, not unreasonably, that many more people died from Covid-19 at home, fearful, unwilling, unable to go to hospital, and thus not counted in the Covid death total. However, overall deaths in the UK in the last year would also include those who died at home. Overall deaths effectively eliminates all biased death factors and includes deaths not immediately reported.

The excess total deaths for the UK show a well-defined peak in the 2nd quarter of 2020, from mid-March to mid-May. Looking at the age break-down, it is clear that those over 45 and particularly over 65 were most susceptible to whatever virus or viruses of the flu season were making people ill. The rest of the year showed a low (normal) death rate that was low until Fall, when the new flu season arrived, which showed then a broader peak more similar to a flu season. [1]

It is a realism that every year more people have aged or developed infirmities that make them susceptible to a flu-like illness and/or complications. The fact that there is an annual peak does not indicate unusual illness or mortality; it’s the flu season that we have had for many years.

We need to resist the temptation to think that we are seeing something new in our world. By the same token, with a focus on flu-type infections and the elderly, it is easy to conclude just from the effective hyping of such deaths that many people are dying.

Elderly with complications die from complications all year round, just more in the flu season and this is very usual. It is curious that suddenly the public has been sensitized to the elderly death rate, as if it was a new thing. Suddenly, a virus is singling out the elderly, while, in fact, the elderly are always at risk, while the risk to other age groups varies from season to season.

It is also clear that the overall death rate in 2020 was exceeded by the five years of 1999-2003. [2] I need to define the death rate here, as it is based on the deaths per thousand people, which eliminates the fact that populations were lower in earlier years. It’s a given that larger population might have a higher death total from a given disease, but not a higher death rate. Diseases work on the susceptible individuals of a population and, thus, it is a proportion of the population that becomes ill or dies. [6]

That said, how does the death rate in the UK for 2020 compare to previous years? It is clear that the death rate in the UK for 2020 was not exceptional compared to previous years [4]. How can that be? If you have Covid-19 as well as influenza killing people, what is going on? An observation has been made that, for some mysterious reason, influenza, as of April in the US, dropped to zero and continues at zero in the latest flu season. [6]

In light of the apparent missing influenza, claims have been made that masking, distancing, and lockdowns were completely effective against influenza, but then there is no talk about its failure in stopping Covid-19, which is a virus of the same size and transmission mode.

Then, we are told that Covid is still around because people are not masking and such properly, which means influenza should also still be around in the US. Since these are infectious viruses, how can these restrictions be effective against one virus and not the other? It does not make sense.

It is also easy to find that US states with strict mandates have the same rates of PCR-positive cases as those who do not. The conjecture can be made that influenza cases are largely reported as Covid-19, based either on a positive PCR test result or on symptoms alone.

In the US, it is clear that there has been a monetary incentive for diagnosing the [Covid] disease and encouraging hospitalizations. The cessation of other medical procedures and tests during this period clearly is going to lead to increased overall deaths. The fact that there appears to be no excess of deaths despite this, indicates that the C-19 virus itself was not as lethal as they claim.

Overall, the death rate in the UK is not out of line with the normal death rates from other years and clearly not close to the highest in the last 22 years. [1] It is difficult to consider influenza deaths when there appears to be a bias toward categorizing influenza and other causes as Covid-19 deaths.

Every year and, for that matter, all year long, there is a population of health-critical individuals who may be overwhelmed by a flu-like illness and open to pneumonia complications. The questionable Covid-19 PCR test appears to be keeping the presence of Covid-19 alive, possibly detecting viruses of the current flu season.

The WHO is now admitting that that this test can be 97% false positives or more, with higher processing cycle numbers. [3] The argument could be made that we have an epidemic of testing.

A little exploration of the Office of National Statistics, Public Health England shows that the numbers for death from influenza and those from Covid-19 are askew. [7] They show 4649 cases mentioning influenza and only 380 with influenza only. This means 92% of these cases had other complicating conditions. However, the same week they report 6057 cases mentioning Covid-19 and 5387 mentioned only Covid-19, with 89% being Covid-19 only.

This defies logic. What happened to pneumonia? It is well-known that flu-like illnesses open one up to pneumonia but, according to the above numbers, 89% of deaths from this virus were ONLY from this virus. That does not correlate with the many reports of illnesses with complications and does not at all correlate with the US CDC’s report that only 6% of their Covid-19 related deaths were from Covid-19 only, which means 94% had comorbidities or complications, such as pneumonia.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of UK statistics. [8] However, the CDC is not that far off from the UK’s own death numbers, showing a small fraction of defined Covid-19 deaths, showing 13,844 deaths from Covid and 50,000 with Covid.  [9]

One could ask what happened to influenza. There appears to be a strong tendency to list illnesses as Covid-19 to make the situation appear more dire and possibly more profitable. In the US, there is a financial incentive to diagnose Covid-19 and encourage hospitalizations.

A sad fact is that unethical medical personnel can talk people into feeling sicker than they really are, particularly when they are primed by fears of a deadly virus. From multiple points of view, looking at the lack of a proper virus isolation and description, the highly variable Covid-19 symptoms, and the fact that a variety of viruses comprise the flu season, I believe that this undescribed virus is most likely not present anymore, but there is no way to show that it is or not because the only “evidence” is the poorly designed PCR test. It is very hard to prove a negative.

[1A] “More evidence of ‘suspicious activity’ at the Wuhan Institute of Virology emerges”


[1] Euromomo, Graphs and Maps


[2] “REPORT: Surge in COVID Coincides w/ Suspiciously Mild Flu Season”


[3] “COVID-19: A Very Different Truth“


[4] “Beware Those Excess COVID-19 Death Analyses”


[5] “WHO exposed: How health body changed pandemic criteria to push agenda”


[6] “Neither US Nor UK Have ANY Excess Deaths From COVID19” [


[7] Weekly deaths for January 1–8, 2021


[8] “How Many Americans Has Covid-19 Really Killed?”


[9] “Breaking: UK Govt’s OWN NUMBERS Expose Their COVID19 Fraud!”


About the author: Banson Wilcot PhD holds degrees in Marine Biology and Biochemistry, with a focus on dermatology and lipid biochemistry, and taught university courses for 12 yearsDr. Wilcot has been professionally editing and critiquing foreign-source research papers for publication and grant applications for 16 years (1000+ items). Being a generalist, he has edited papers ranging from coal-fire dynamics, nanotechnology, material science, electrochemistry, all areas of biochemistry and molecular biology, and organic applications as well as oceanography/marine biology and many marine research topics.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The Shocking Truth About Health Passports

Dr Vernon Coleman | January 27, 2021

Click on the following link to see Dr Coleman’s video on PCR testing (more shocks) at

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, explains exactly what health passports are likely to contain and who will be making them (you’ll be horrified).

For more unbiased information about other important matters, please visit

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

CIA Counterterror Chief Suggests Going To War Against ‘Domestic Insurgents’

By Steve Watson | Summit News | February 4, 2021

The former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center has suggested that counterinsurgency tactics used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan should be applied to ‘domestic extremists’ inside the US.

NPR reports that Robert Grenier, who directed the CIA’s Counterterrorism program from 2004 to 2006, declared “We may be witnessing the dawn of a sustained wave of violent insurgency within our own country, perpetrated by our own countrymen.”

In an op-ed for The New York Times last week, Grenier suggested that “extremists who seek a social apocalypse … are capable of producing endemic political violence of a sort not seen in this country since Reconstruction.”

Grenier, also a former CIA station chief in Pakistan and Afghanistan, grouped together “the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, the Oath Keepers, ‘Christian’ national chauvinists, white supremacists and QAnon fantasists” and claimed they are all “committed to violent extremism.”

Grenier labeled dissenters an “insurgency” and called for them to be “defeated” like an enemy army.

In further comments to NPR, Grenier stated that “as in any insurgency situation, you have committed insurgents who are typically a relatively small proportion of the affected population. But what enables them to carry forward their program is a large number of people from whom they can draw tacit support.”

Grenier also stated that insurgents may emerge from groups who “believe that the election was stolen,” or those “who don’t trust NPR or The New York Times.”

“The most violent elements that we are concerned about right now see former President Trump as a broadly popular and charismatic symbol,” the CIA spook added, before comparing Trump to Saddam Hussein.

“You know, just as I saw in the Middle East that the air went out of violent demonstrations when [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein was defeated and seen to be defeated, I think the same situation applies here,” he proclaimed.

Grenier suggested that Trump should be convicted at the upcoming impeachment trial as a ‘national security imperative’ because “So long as he is there and leading the resistance, if you will, which he shows every sign of intending to do, he is going to be an inspiration to very violent people.”

Grenier then compared Americans to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, noting that in Afghanistan “the thrust of our campaign there was, yes, to hunt down al-Qaida, but primarily to remove the supportive environment in which they were able to live and to flourish. And that meant fighting the Taliban.”

“I think that is the heart of what we need to deal with here,” he added.


Linking to Grenier’s comments, journalist Glenn Greenwald quipped that wedding guests throughout America should watch out for drone missiles.

The call to treat Americans as terrorist insurgents comes on the heels of a Department of Homeland Security warning that those dissatisfied with the election result may rise up and commit acts of terrorism in the coming weeks.

“Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence,” stated the bulletin issued last week through the DHS National Terrorist Advisory System — or NTAS.

The bulletin added that ‘extremists’ may be “motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force.”

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | 1 Comment

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s New 2020 Hate Map Is Fake News

By Eric Striker – National Justice – February 3, 2021

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) seems to be enjoying a small resurgence of attention from the mainstream media since the January 6th Capitol protests.

Various scandals, both financial and moral, have largely discredited the SPLC across the political spectrum. Most of its most competent and high profile members like Richard Cohen, Heidi Beirich and Rhonda Brownstein have left the organization, while their “hate group” designations are largely dismissed as meaningless outside of very small circles of Antifa activists and tech censors.

Recently, it updated its infamous “Hate Map” for 2020. The map claims that there are 838 active “hate groups” operating in the United States as we speak.

Despite all the mockery the SPLC has endured throughout the years, its clear that they are impervious to criticism, even from liberal groups, about their blatant lack of interest in facts and low professional standards.

The “Hate Groups” That Don’t Exist

Setting aside the debate over what constitutes a “hate group,” the vast majority of organizations listed state-by-state are either religious congregations, online publications and e-shops, or in hundreds of cases, non-existent and dishonestly catalogued.

For example, the SPLC claims the National Reformation Party is an active “white nationalist” group currently operating in seven states. The only sign that they even exist is a single website, which on the very front of its page clearly states “Race is a social construct having no biological basis” — an opinion that at minimum precludes them from being classed as “white nationalist.”

That’s just the tip of the iceberg. A skinhead crew called the Vinlander’s Social Club (VSC) and its supporter faction, Firm 22, are listed on the 2020 map as having 11 chapters altogether. A simple search on Wikipedia reveals that VSC was officially disbanded in 2007, with its founder publicly condemning “racism.”

Then there’s White Aryan Resistance, which has for decades been composed of a website that hosted Tom Metzger’s radio program. Metzger is deceased.

How about the American Identity Movement (AIM), which they say is currently engaging in “hate” in 10 states. The organization was officially shut down months ago and there is no sign it ever had much of a presence to begin with.

The Base (5), AtomWaffen Division (6), Micetrap Records (1), Soldiers of Odin (6), Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (6), and countless others are defunct, in some cases for years.

The most ridiculous entry on the list is the National Socialist German Workers Party. Just when we thought that the NSDAP was defeated in 1945, the SPLC reminds us that they in fact have a surviving chapter in Lincoln, Nebraska. Another page on the SPLC’s website claims the NSDAP’s Nebraska Gauleiter is Gary Lauck, who in truth runs a historical book store that sells translated writings by Third Reich authors. Lauck’s online shop itself is listed as a separate “hate group” in the state, just one county over.

The vast majority of non-religious groups on the map that do exist are book publishing houses like Arktos and Antelope Hill Books, personal blogs and podcasts belonging to individuals, or newspapers and news sites. The seemingly large, multi-state presence of the National Socialist Movement (NSM) and various Klan outfits should be taken with a massive grain of salt.

SPLC’s Lists Entire Religions as Hate Groups

The decision to include traditional interpretations of Catholicism, Protestantism, and folk religion is another trick used to pump numbers up.

According to the SPLC, traditionalist Catholics — nine entries overall (mostly just websites and publications) — are a hate group. If we take this logic at face value, every single Catholic who ever lived before the Second Vatican Council in 1962 was a member of a hate organization. Protestants who hold beliefs that dissent from modern “woke” factions are also included on the list.

A glaring double standard is evident in the decision to include adherents of British Israelism (Christian Identity) and Black Israelites on the list. These two groups believe they are the chosen people of the Old Testament, and live by a literal interpretation of its values. If blacks and whites are guilty of hate for preaching this doctrine, why aren’t adherents of Judaism also listed for hate?

Finally, the category of “Neo-Volkisch” is entered 32 times. The word appears to be a loaded, made up phrase to refer to those who pray to the old Gods or practice Asatru. The main culprit is the Asatru Folk Assembly, a 501(c)(3) religious organization that does not engage in political activity.

While other branded groups like the Nation of Islam engage in harsh discourse about white people, it isn’t any more extreme than what Charles Blow regularly writes in New York Times editorials or what SPLC’s more extreme employees believe. NOI’s main offense appears to be its stance on traditional family values and willingness to critique the supposed black-Jewish relationship.

The SPLC’s map is a low-effort piece of disinformation that is transparently and deliberately dishonest.

In spite of all the criticism they have received over their hate list, they are doubling down on a scam intended to provide ammo for leftist propaganda, as well as to extract donations from wealthy consumers of their fake news.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

The establishment wants a Reality Czar in order to crush dissent, not unite us around objective truth

By Michael McCaffrey | RT | February 3, 2021

The mainstream media and ruling elite really hate conspiracy theories and misinformation – except when they don’t.

On February 2, which ironically enough is Groundhog Day here in the US, the New York Times published an article titled ‘How The Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis’.

It seems a very bad sign that America is now relying on a geriatric Washington insider whose own perception of reality has been called in to question numerous times to solve a “reality crisis”.

One of the suggestions was that Biden should create a “Reality Czar” to oversee the dismantling of “disinformation” and the surveillance of “conspiracy theorists”.

In the article, writer Kevin Roose spoke with ‘experts’ who offered suggestions about how to unify Americans around “reality” by stamping out “conspiracy theories” and “misinformation”.

That sounds like a great idea – I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

The problem with a ‘reality czar’ is that America is a post-reality nation. Our culture has gone so far to the extreme with regard to embracing subjective experience over objective reality that some blowhard bureaucrat is not going to be able to tip the scales back towards the rational.

And, of course, that is the point. The Biden administration doesn’t want to return America to objective reality, they want Americans to embrace the establishment’s reality – and those are two very different things.

The establishment reality is the neo-liberal, corporate controlled, military-industrial-complex reality that loathes being held to account for its continuous misdeeds and misinformation.

The establishment reality demands we accept the absurdly incomplete official story regarding the spate of assassinations in the ’60s (JFK, MLK, RFK) while refusing to declassify and un-redact the millions of government files on those topics it won’t let us see.

The establishment reality lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and gave us the hell of the Vietnam War.

The establishment reality lied to us about Iran-Contra and the death squads in Latin America. It also lied about its complicity in the drug trade while it manufactured a War on Drugs.

The establishment reality refused to declassify documents about 9/11 and to investigate the funding for that attack. It also unleashed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s ‘Dark Side’, which included the War on Terror, torture, massive surveillance, Gitmo, rendition and the Patriot Act.

The establishment reality was the one that told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and gave us the Iraq War, and continues to give us the war in Yemen and the carnage in Libya and across the globe.

It is often said that daylight is the best disinfectant, but we are continuously kept in the dark, and the establishment, regardless of which party is in power, is a gangrenous limb whose lies and disinformation are much more toxic to America and the world than anything some QAnon clowns can conjure in their fever dreams.

It is pretty rich that the New York Times is running this article calling for a reality czar and bemoaning disinformation, as it has long aided and abetted the establishment in its concealing of truth and distorting of objective reality.

Whether it be Walter Duranty and his lies for Stalin, or Judith Miller and her lies for Bush, the Times has proven over and over again that it isn’t a news organisation, but a praetorian guard meant to protect the tyrants, oligarchs and aristocrats from the masses.

Am I the only one who remembers the Russiagate hysteria? Stories of dastardly Rooskies hacking into power grids and voting booths, and using microwave weapons to attack Americans have been commonplace in the Times and across the mainstream media, and yet those ‘conspiracy theories’ were not only accepted but embraced. The establishment’s hatred of conspiracy theories is particularly amusing in light of what transpired over the past four years.

Would the new Reality Czar hold the Times accountable for those idiotic stories? Would MSNBC be chastised for Rachel Maddow’s conspiratorial ramblings? Would CNN be reprimanded for its “mostly peaceful protests” disinformation?

Would the Reality Czar target the scientists and medical experts who publicly proclaimed that it was OK to gather in large groups during the pandemic to protest for Black Lives Matter but not to protest against lockdown?

How about those radical trans activists who distort and contort both science and reality?

Would the Reality Czar target the new White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, especially considering her laughably ridiculous press conference from 2015, at which, with a straight face, she stated that the US had a “long-standing” policy against backing coups?

Of course not.

Like a paranoid schizophrenic, our political and media elite is constantly trying to convince people that its own devious delusions are the one true reality.

The Reality Czar would not be required to actually quash misinformation and conspiracy theories – only the misinformation and conspiracy theories the establishment doesn’t like.

As Orwell told us, “Who controls the past, controls the future, who controls the present, controls the past.” The establishment wants to control the present, the past, the future and, most of all, you. And a Reality Czar is just the beginning.

The ‘reality is that the ruling elite are pushing the notion of rampant right-wing domestic terrorists and the danger of conspiracy theories in an attempt to conceal their crimes and stifle dissent, not to help objective “reality” flourish.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | 3 Comments

Jewish Organization Behind Tech Censorship Funded Study Saying It’s A Figment Of Your Imagination

By Eric Striker | National Justice | February 4, 2021

A New York University study released this week claiming that Twitter and Facebook do not censor the “political right” has been widely mocked and lambasted as a symbol of the conflict of interests and lack of credibility in American academia.

The most Orwellian aspect of this story is that the paper was financed by tech billionaire Craig Newmark, who is Jewish and a leading member of the Anti-Defamation League’s Silicon Valley speech suppression lobby, the Center for Technology and Society (CTS).

The CTS specializes in two things, the first is to aid eager-to-be-used Jewish tech moguls in their quest to censor ideas they perceive threatening to Jewish interests (preserving domestic liberalism and Israel against populist challenges are their main priorities), and the second is to intimidate those who don’t want to play ball, like former free speech advocate Jack Dorsey, into doing their bidding.

CTS concentrates Jewish legal, political, technological, financial and media to shut down dissent. Besides Newmark, its advisory board includes formidable figures such as Shawn Henry, a former assistant director at the FBI, Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, Guy Rosen, product VP at Facebook, and Eli Pariser, the president and co-founder of Democratic Party activist powerhouses and

The tyrants at CTS have so far achieved impressive results. The ADL was the major force behind the banning of Donald Trump, the destruction of Parler, and the long-term project to radically transform the internet from its original mission to be a public square of free debate into an American version of North Korea’s internet.

In cases like Gab, who the ADL has been unable to shut down, they are diligently working to get the Department of Justice to put its defiant CEO Andrew Torba in prison.

The ADL’s campaign of repression is so extreme that authors in Jewish newspapers, who broadly support what they’re doing, are asking them to cool off, “So it’s hardly surprising that Greenblatt has already declared ADL’s support for impeaching Trump a second time. That’s a position a lot of Americans—and, no doubt, the majority of American Jews—agree with, and not all of them are partisan Democrats like Greenblatt. But the question here is: What in the world is a group whose purpose is to monitor and advocate against anti-Semitism doing involving itself in the debate about impeachment?”

As for Newmark, his total lack of respect for ethics, facts and scholarship don’t end at manufacturing fake studies. The organization social media companies have tasked with supposedly fact checking “disinformation,” the Poynter Institute, is also Newmark’s pet project.

In other words, when Tucker Carlson’s producers received an ominous email warning them to stop spreading “disinformation” attached to an NYU study claiming to debunk them, the Jews behind the tech censorship campaign paid for a bogus study claiming tech censorship doesn’t exist that the fact-checking think-tank they also fund will deem “disinformation” to disagree with.

The debate over free speech in America is worthless until people work up the courage to talk about the ADL and the Jewish community’s complete lack of respect for fundamental American principals and the rights of non-Jews.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Navalny will remain the West’s darling, but not Russia’s

By Johanna Ross | February 4, 2021

In case you missed it, Russian blogger/politician/investigative journalist Alexei Navalny was sentenced on Tuesday in a Moscow court to 2 years 8 months in prison for breaking the terms of a suspended sentence.

The western media is, of course, outraged. The leaders of the US, UK and France have all joined in unison to demand his release. Michael McFaul continues with his Navalny/Mandela comparisons on Twitter until we finally accept it. He’s clearly following the old adage of ‘if you say something often enough, it becomes the truth’.

What seemed like overnight, Alexei Navalny has gone from being an obscure opposition activist to the saviour of Russia and the human race itself (or as the western media would have us believe). Opposition journalists, of whom several are not even based in Russia, but prefer to egg-on their activist colleagues from the safety of the US and Europe, have been tweeting their profanities and scolding the Russian authorities for not immediately releasing their media darling.

While the western world has become caught up in the drama of this ‘one man against the world story’, few are able to scratch beneath the surface, to see past the golden gates of ‘Putin’s palace’ and the condemned man kissing his wife goodbye in the airport as he meets his fate. Navalny is an expert in PR, something which his opponents are only just catching up with.

Alexei Navalny has quite deliberately set about becoming a political martyr. His very existence depends on the mythology surrounding his plight. His existence, his financial support (which I shall touch on later) depends on him being a ‘victim’ of the Russian state. He has to continue his anti-Putin programme to sustain himself and his family. For what other job/career does he have? No other would pay as well.

How many of those protestors who responded to his ‘call to arms’ in January and ventured out into the bitter cold to demonstrate, could actually name any of his policies? Could they even say what he stood for? Navalny himself isn’t sure. He has flipped and flopped between right-wing nationalism and left-wing policies for the last two decades. The only consistent policy is he wants to bring down Putin and replace him (if you can call that a policy).

As renowned academic Anatol Lieven has noted, we have to put aside the emotion in this case and deal primarily with the facts. Navalny has played with our emotions as much as possible; emphasising the romantic attachment to his wife with footage of him signing love hearts on the glass box in the courtroom; and performing the role of the underdog in the case to the letter. But over the last few months, the world, including the Kremlin, has been dancing to his tune, not the other way around.

In Germany Navalny was treated like a diplomat, escorted around by the security services, visited by Chancellor Merkel. He decided when he would arrive back to Russia, and knew he would be arrested. The release of his ‘Putin’s Palace’ video, which he clearly worked on in collaboration with German intelligence while he stayed there, was perfectly timed to be published just after his arrest, and it was hoped this would trigger mass protests, which in turn would pressurise the authorities to let him go. Protests certainly took place, but much to his supporters’ dismay, the authorities had no plans to override the law and release him.

And it’s worth here touching on that infamous palace video – which we now know, thanks to a video produced by ‘Mash’ – to be a complete misrepresentation of the truth. There are no golden gates. There is no baroque furniture. The ‘palace’ at the moment is a concrete shell, and there is no direct evidence linking it to the Russian President – instead it has been claimed by businessman Arkady Rotenberg as an aparthotel complex. That in itself is offensive, that Navalny would have the Russian people believe that there is a luxurious ‘dvorets’ on their doorstep, photoshopping the whole building to dupe people into buying his ‘golden toilet brush’ story. It shows extreme contempt for the general public he is addressing.

Indeed, Navalny would have us believe that he is acting on behalf of the Russian people. From his prison cell, he is demanding people go out on the streets in the middle of the Russian winter, during a pandemic, to take part in unsanctioned demonstrations, for which they are likely to be arrested, and as is often the case during such mass protests, injured. Is this thinking about the Russian people? Of course not. Navalny is thinking about Navalny.

Returning to the subject of who finances him, there have been suspicions for some time as to the extent to which he is being subsidised by western governments. Then, earlier this week, an explosive FSB video was released detailing a conversation between Navalny’s ally Vladimir Ashurkov and a British embassy official back in 2012. Unbelievably candid, Ashurkov asks the diplomat for ‘millions of dollars a year’ to help Navalny with his campaign, reminding him that foreign businesses have ‘billions at stake’. Literally asking a foreign power to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign state with a view to toppling the current government. If that doesn’t constitute treason, I don’t know what does.

For his part, we know that Ashurkov, who remains the Executive Director of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Fund, has links to UK intelligence operations. Granted political asylum in the UK in 2015 after being wanted on embezzlement charges in Russia, Ashurkov was named in the documents of the Integrity Initiative – the UK’s covert anti-Russia propaganda campaign funded by the Foreign Office – leaked back in 2019. All this simply confirms the Kremlin’s assertions that Navalny is being aided and abetted by countries that have declared Russia their sworn enemy.

The western involvement in and support for Navalny’s campaign vastly reduces his chances of being taken seriously in Russia. For the vast majority of Russians he is the anti-hero, not Russia’s saviour as he is being portrayed in the West. Therefore while he may remain the West’s darling, he won’t be Russia’s.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

February 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment