Aletho News


Dr. Stella Demands an Apology after Studies Prove She was Right on HCQ – Vaccines Not Needed!

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | February 9, 2021

Dr. Stella Immanuel, a medical doctor from Houston who has cured hundreds of her patients with COVID symptoms by using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), was one of a group of doctors who went to Washington D.C. last summer to tell the nation that there was a cure for COVID, which included the older, already FDA-approved drug, hydroxychloroquine.

Many other doctors, some with very prestigious credentials, from around the world were seeing the same results with early treatment of COVID patients, and a near 100% success rate with no deaths.

But the FDA and Anthony Fauci refused to endorse an emergency use authorization to let hospitals use the drug, stating that their clinical experiences were not enough, and that there was a lack of peer-reviewed literature.

They allowed this lack of published studies to be used as an excuse to prevent patients from receiving this treatment, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, while TRILLIONS of dollars were poured into new vaccines and drugs instead. This is one of the real crimes committed during the Plandemic.

To learn more about this scandal, see our page on hydroxychloroquine.

Now, at the beginning of 2021, many studies have been published documenting the effectiveness of HCQ, and Facebook has announced they will stop censoring information related to HCQ, and the American Journal of Medicine has also admitted that their stand on HCQ was wrong. (Source.)

Dr. Stella Immanuel is now demanding an apology from the Pharma-controlled media, and the government health agencies who attacked her and her character for recommending HCQ, stating that someone “has to be accountable” for all these needless deaths.

See our previous coverage on Dr. Immanuel:

“Nobody Needs to Die” – Frontline Doctors Storm D.C. Claiming “Thousands of Doctors” are Being Silenced on Facts and Treatments for COVID

Frontline Doctor Stella: “I should let people die because I’m scared of Anthony Fauci? I should let people die because I’m scared of the WHO? I’m not scared of any of them. I’m not going to let people die.”

Dr. Stella Emmanuel Cleared by Texas Medical Board for Complaint while Real Criminal Doctors Still Free After Murdering Millions

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 1 Comment

Jolani gets a make-over in Idlib

By Steven Sahiounie | Mideast Discourse | February 9, 2021

The administration of [proclaimed] President Joe Biden may use a new tactic to bring Damascus to its knees. The ‘regime-change’ policy of Obama, which spawned ‘forever-wars’ in Libya and Syria, has a new twist.

Biden could choose to solve the Syrian conflict through diplomacy, but he may have tasked Secretary of State Anthony Blinken with re-inventing a terrorist following Radical Islam, and with a $10 million bounty on his head, as the new leader of Syria.

Abu Mohammed Al-Jolani, the leader of Syria’s Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), which had been previously named Jibhat al-Nusra, and where the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, had changed their name in a previous bout of re-branding their image.

The US is now in the process of changing the mask on HTS in Syria, as the group is listed by the US, EU, Russia, the UN, and Turkey as a terrorist group. Jolani took off his guerrilla warfare uniform and switched to a business suit recently in a PBS “Frontline” interview with journalist Martin Smith. Western audiences may be fooled by the new look, but the residents of Syria know the true Jolani. Washing away the gallons of blood on his hands will take a much deeper sanitizing than a new suit. Biden may have a hard time explaining the support of Jolani to French President Macron, who has officially declared war on Radical Islam.

The US had justified their illegal occupation of Syria as necessary to fight Islamic State (IS) terrorist group. The group was successfully dislodged from the territory they had held in northeast Syria.

The sole remaining territory held by an armed group following Radical Islam is Idlib, in the northwest, an area which US officials once described as “the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11”. Western media describes Idlib as ‘a last stronghold of Syrian rebel groups’. The US and its media outlets have used the terms ‘terrorists’ and ‘rebels’ interchangeably, which has effectively re-branded blood-thirsty criminals into freedom fighters.

Trump had inherited the Syrian conflict from Obama, and he did not work toward any solution but held the status-quo, which saw US troops illegally stationed in Syria to steal the oil. Trump allowed Saudi Arabia to write the US foreign policy on Syria, due to his tight relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The US refused to beat HTS, instead, they protected them in Idlib, and have denounced Syrian and Russian attacks on the group. Now, the US has joined with HTS leader Jolani as their new man to lead Syria, still committed to the US policy of ‘regime change’.

The names change, but the essence is the same. In Syria, there were many armed groups, from the Free Syrian Army to Al Qaeda, and IS. Each had a leader, and a name, but in essence, all were the same: men killing people in the name of God. Their goal is ‘regime change’ and the regime they seek to install in Damascus is an Islamic government, with Sharia as the constitution and rule of law.

Turkey invaded Idlib and has 20,000 troops there, but has been reluctant to publically support HTS, because of the ‘terrorist’ listing. The US may begin a process to remove HTS from the terrorist label, which would open up greater aid and western investment in Idlib. At the same time, this close cooperation in Idlib between the US and Turkey could strengthen a fragile relationship between the two NATO partners. However, Turkey is ruled by a Muslim Brotherhood partyAKP, and there are calls by many in the US and the Arab Gulf states, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.

The sizable Christian population in Idlib has suffered greatly at the hands of HTS and other Radical Islamic terrorist groups. Not only physical suffering but their properties were seized and they were made destitute and homeless.

The Russian-Turkish ceasefire remains fragile, while joint patrols along the M4 highway have essentially halted since August from terrorist attacks on trucks and civilians. The March 2020 agreement between Russia and Turkey explicitly calls for both sides to “combat all forms of terrorism, and to eliminate all terrorist groups in Syria as designated by the UN Security Council, which includes HTS.

Jolani fought in the post-2003 Iraq war as a member of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI, which later became ISIS), and in 2011 brought ISIS to Syria. He left ISIS in 2013, and declared allegiance to Al Qaeda, and established their affiliate in Syria, Jibhat al-Nusra.

Al-Nusra became known for being more brutal than all others and was feared and loathed by the Syrian civilians who were their victims. The group carried out war crimes and massacres of unarmed civilians sleeping in their own homes near Latakia in 2013. Killing, maiming, raping, and kidnapping was their calling card.

Jolani has been recast as the local Syrian leader capable of governing Idlib. However, Syria is a much bigger place than Idlib, which is a small agricultural area, only known for its olives. What about the biggest city, Aleppo, or the capital Damascus: what would the residents there think of an ex-ISIS member being in charge of Syria? The Syrian people have lived under a secular form of government for 40 years, and have fought against Radical Islam for ten years. Morphing a terrorist into a leader is a fantasy conjured up in Washington, DC. but will not play well to a Syrian audience.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , | 1 Comment

Leaders, members ‘angry’ at Hamas’ participation in elections

MEMO | February 9, 2021

Leaders and members of Hamas in the occupied West Bank, besieged Gaza Strip and the diaspora are angry at the movement’s decision to participate in the general elections called for by the Palestinian Authority, Arabi21 reported.

The site quoted multiple sources within the movement as saying that the organisation’s leaders and members in the West Bank have informed the leadership that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the decision to participate, which they said had been taken in a “hurry”.

Those who spoke to Arabi21 said the Hamas members’ general dissatisfaction with the decision stems from their view that Hamas’ condition in the West Bank has not changed and its members continue to suffer from the restrictions imposed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel and it still cannot participate in any public meetings.

They also believe “the elections aim to create a new team with new legitimacy, which will strip Hamas of legitimacy and allow the new team to sign any agreement or do whatever it wants on the grounds that it is elected.”

Sources believe Hamas members in the Gaza Strip and in the diaspora consider the decision to take part in the elections to be “unwise and unbalanced”.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | 2 Comments

Another Zionist Joins the Biden Team

Neuberger will make our cyber secure?

By PHILIP GIRALDI • Unz Review • February 9, 2021

It does not require any particularly perspicacity to realize that the [proclaimed] President Joe Biden Administration has been loaded with Zionists who not only believe in their own vision for Greater Israel but also in some cases have strong and enduring ties to the Israeli government itself. The new Secretary of State Tony Blinken comes from an American Jewish family that has well established ties to Israel. Blinken’s paternal grandfather was one of the founders of an organization that eventually evolved into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Blinken said at his Senate confirmation hearing that the new administration would “consult with Israel” before any possible return to the 2015 nuclear deal and he also made clear that there will be “additional conditions for Iran,” an odd position to take since it was the U.S. that withdrew from the agreement and introduced a harsh sanctions regime even though Iran was in compliance. More recently, Blinken claimed that Iran is weeks away from having the enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear weapon. Strangely enough, or perhaps not, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been making the same claim since the 1980s.

Joe Biden himself proclaims proudly that he is a Zionist and Vice President Kamala Harris has spoken at AIPAC gatherings, pledging her unconditional support for the Jewish state. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer has proclaimed himself “shomer” or protector of Israel in the Senate while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that the “If this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.” The House Majority Leader, the second ranking Democrat, Steny Hoyer has proudly led numerous Congressional delegations to Israel.

One has to suspect that many White House and Congressional friends of Israel are opportunists, knowledgeable of the fact that Zionism is career enhancing and equally aware that getting on the wrong side of “The Lobby” is a political death wish. Many politically astute senior officials meanwhile wind up by design in positions in the Department of State, CIA and National Security Council where they will be able to narrow foreign policy options in favor of the Jewish state. Under George W. Bush, folks like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and Scooter Libby worked hard to infiltrate the Pentagon and White House and, having succeeded, the disastrous Iraq War was the result.

One might also recall the concurrent purge of the so-called “Arabists” in the State Department in the 1950s which has led to a domination of key foreign and national security positions relating to the Middle East by American Jews ever since. Indeed, the shift in priorities at State Department has been dramatic, with Foggy Bottom now housing an office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, allegedly because anti-Semitism is surging worldwide, apparently having nothing to do with how Israel and its supporters behave. The incumbent, Elan Carr, has recently been elevated to the rank of Ambassador-at-large and his office, as well as the Biden Administration, now insists that criticism of Israel is ipso facto anti-Semitism. So much for free speech in the new world order.

Once upon a time it was considered unwise to appoint senior officials who had personal ties to other countries lest it create a conflict of interest that would not ultimately be beneficial to either nation. In his often-cited Farewell Address of 1796, George Washington famously warned that “… permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”

If Washington were to see the foreign policy ruined by the Israel-centric federal government that has prevailed since the time of Ronald Reagan he would surely be at a loss to understand how that could possibly have developed. Donald Trump even intensified the pander by giving the Israelis gifts that they had not asked for and Joe Biden looks like he will do more of the same. When it comes to Israel, no concession or gift is ever enough.

The FBI, in the past, routinely denied security clearances to appointed officials who had close and enduring ties to other countries that were not part of NATO. Under Donald Trump, it was reported that his son-in-law Jared Kushner had been denied a top-level clearance in part due to his family’s close personal connection with Israel, to include its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is regarded as a family friend. Donald Trump ignored the recommendation and used his own authority to grant Kushner the clearance anyway.

The latest friend of Israel to rise to the top as Biden completes his appointments is one Anne Neuberger, who recently was named senior director for cyber policy on the National Security Council. Neuberger has spent the last decade at the National Security Agency, the Pentagon’s cyber spying arm, where she was recently appointed head of the newly created cybersecurity directorate. Her husband Yehuda meanwhile is chair of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Baltimore executive council. He reportedly lobbied ardent Zionist Senator Ben Cardin to oppose the 2015 Iran nuclear deal the Obama White House had negotiated. Cardin did vote against it in spite of it being strongly supported by his party leader President Barack Obama.

There is, not surprisingly, an additional back story to the tale. It goes something like this: NBC news published on January 27th an article claiming that a family foundation connected to Neuberger has donated $500,000 to AIPAC, which is the largest of the hundreds of Jewish organizations that are dedicated to advancing Israeli interests in the United States. AIPAC had in 2019 an annual budget of $133 million, assets of $157 million and 476 employees. It lobbies Congress heavily and is successful to the point where it actually writes legislation favorable to the Jewish State.

The NBC article stated that: “The daughter of billionaire investor George Karfunkel, Neuberger is an officer of a foundation named for her and her husband, the Yehuda and Anne Neuberger Foundation. The foundation was created 12 years ago to ‘carry out the charitable and religious purposes of the Associated Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore,’ according to its tax records… From 2012 through 2018 — the last year for which tax records for the foundation are available — the Neuberger foundation donated $559,000 to AIPAC, tax record show. In a separate part of the forms, the foundation reports spending that exact amounts of its AIPAC donations under the category of spending for lobbying ‘to influence a legislative body’ or ‘to influence public opinion…’”

The article also observes that “[Israel] operates in its own interest and aggressively spies on the U.S., including using cyber capabilities.” It also cites “A cross section of current and former intelligence officials and foreign policy experts — none of whom were willing to be named — [who] said the donations created an appearance problem. They noted that Israel, whose companies build and sell spying gear to regimes abroad and whose intelligence agencies hack foreign governments around the world, has a big stake in American cyber policy.”

The Neuberger foundation also contributes money to the neocon dominated Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), which, like AIPAC, colludes directly with the Israeli Embassy in Washington. FDD should be registered as a foreign agent, but no Israel connected entity has ever been forced to comply. To be sure, Neuberger’s involvement with the foundation and her participation in the money contribution to AIPAC should have been an element in her security clearance process, but that process may have been either modified for political reasons or the information was not made available. The NBC report observes that “A spokeswoman for the National Security Council declined to answer detailed questions about the matter, saying, ‘As a senior NSC employee, Ms. Neuberger will abide by the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments By Executive Branch Personnel.’ It’s not clear Neuberger would have been required to disclose contributions by her family foundation as part of her ethics or security clearance reviews — so it’s not known whether the Biden team vetted the donations. Although the donations are listed in public tax filings available on the web, some effort is required to find them.”

The supporters of Neuberger are incorrect in that the contributions made in her name to AIPAC, which most in Washington regard as a front for the Israeli government, would have most definitely been relevant to her clearance process. Under normal rules, it would disqualify her from having a top level clearance, but, as should be noted, we are dealing here with Israel. Neuberger’s appointment as head of U.S. cybersecurity while donating hundreds of thousands to the lobbying arm of a foreign government that recently welcomed to great fanfare a citizen of theirs, Jonathan Pollard, who spied on the U.S., as a hero is unacceptable. One might also add that Israel is regarded as the most active “friendly” government in respect to its spying on the United States, often using sayanim American Jews as their “agents,” and its well documented history of stealing U.S. high technology is extensive. It also has highly developed cyber capabilities of its own which it has recently used against American government targets, to include the White House.

The final twist to the Neuberger story is that complaints from Jewish groups and individuals began to pour into NBC after it released the story, some concerned that a wonderful organization like AIPAC was being impugned. AIPAC denounced the piece directly, claiming that its “Charges of dual loyalty are anti-Semitic and insult millions of Americans—Jewish & non-Jewish—who stand by our ally Israel.” The news network then surrendered, pulling and archiving the story after claiming that it had not met its usual standards due to its use of anonymous sources and failure to give Neuberger adequate time to respond. NBC did not contest the AIPAC claim that Israel is an actual American ally, which is itself a lie, nor to the compelling evidence that some American Jews certainly do demonstrate either dual or singular loyalty that favors Israel.

But my favorite contribution in support of Neuberger comes from President Barack Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who appears to be in line for a Biden senior foreign policy appointment. He tweeted: “I don’t know Anne Neuberger, but the ‘charge’ against her — that she’s not fit for national security work because her family foundation supported political work that is fully protected under the Constitution — is offensive and belied by her stellar career. Glad she is serving.”

Shapiro’s claim that a senior national security official’s supporting a lobby that exists to obtain favors for a foreign country is a “free speech” issue is curious. One also wonders about Shapiro’s ultimate loyalty, recalling how he left his ambassadorial post to live in Israel, where he presumably now holds dual-citizenship. He subsequently told an American Jewish audience that Israel is “this miracle, this gift, this jewel” and worked as a senior officer in an Israeli national security think tank, representing it in testimony before Congress, which should have required him to register as a foreign agent. But he didn’t do so and got away with it because it was Israel, of course. And now he is giving advice on a critical United States national security issue in which he is dead wrong. That is the fundamental problem. We Americans are, at our peril, never allowed to challenge the extent of someone’s devotion to a foreign country if that country just happens to be Israel.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Why Would the US Stir Up Conflict in North Africa?

Photo credit: FAROUK BATICHE/AFP via Getty Images
By Vladimir Odintsov – New Eastern Outlook – 09.02.2021

The Trump administration, which left the US political Olympus, actively sought to sow contradictions in the unity of the Arab world in the Middle East, to divide these countries, to force the states that yield to the influence of Washington to lose even more identity and independence in their politics, to obey only the dictates of the American-Israeli elite. It was to this end that active steps were taken to build a new configuration of the region with forceful pressure on Muslim countries for diplomatic recognition of Israel. Although it was clear to everyone, including in the US itself, that without a solution of the Palestinian question by Tel Aviv, no Abraham Accords made between the leaders of individual Muslim states and the Jewish state would bring these countries peace and political stability.

Trump’s initiatives to involve North African countries in the game of chess, conceived by his administration, in which Israel was supposed to be the leading figure, brought no calm to the political situation either. And Donald Trump’s baiting of Morocco on “US support for the kingdom’s sovereignty over the territories of Western Sahara in Africa” for agreeing to recognize the Jewish state has only exacerbated the situation in the region. Political activists in countries such as Algeria and Libya, which for decades have supported the Polisario Front, which insists on the creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), opposed Washington’s decision.

As a result, the Polisario Front declared the end of a 30-year truce and mobilized the population to fight the “Moroccan occupiers” and began preparing for hostilities with Morocco, whose army also said it would conduct an operation in Western Sahara to “restore the unity of the nation.” The military has already entered the buffer zone, ignoring its obligations to the UN, which, in fact, was the trigger for a new armed conflict in Africa. The military operations have already started, involving the use of artillery and MLRs, as well as peacekeepers, who fired APCs to repel the Polisario’s attack in the direction of the border town of Guerherat. The main hope of the Polisario rebels is Algeria, which was already considering stepping up its forces against the kingdom.

Mohammed Salem Ould Salek, one of the leaders of the Polisario Front, accused the Moroccan authorities of fomenting war in the region. In addition, he stated that his organization, as well as the SADR administration, had lost confidence in UN Secretary General António Guterres because his recent report did not comply with the letter and spirit of the joint UN-African Union (AU) plan to resolve the conflict in Western Sahara.

Another Polisario Front representative, Sidi Mohammed Omar, quoted by AFP, believes that the Guterres report gives a false impression of calm, when in reality there is chaos in the region. He claims that the Moroccan authorities have grossly violated human rights in the occupied territories by abducting, torturing and killing Polisario and SADR functionaries.

At the same time, in spite of the ongoing tension around the problem of Western Sahara, it should be noted that since the arrival of the new US President Joe Biden in the White House, despite the breakdown of the truce, the rebels are not trying to make a serious offensive in the lands controlled by Rabat. They are clearly hoping that the new US administration may renegotiate Trump’s agreement with Morocco on Western Sahara. Moreover, Polisario is well aware that, without the necessary support from the international community and with insufficient firepower, a prolonged war with Morocco is clearly untenable. Therefore, the recent loud statements of the Polisario fighters are more a desire to draw international attention to the situation in Western Sahara, to get the support of world powers to put pressure on Morocco to withdraw royal troops from the occupied territories.

The Moroccan authorities are already accusing the authorities of neighboring Algeria of covertly supporting the Polisario. Other countries, in particular the United Arab Emirates, which opened a diplomatic mission in Western Sahara 10 days before the start of the war, are involuntarily brought into the conflict. In addition, the situation escalated after the government of Côte d’Ivoire, followed by several other small African states, including Gabon, Comoros, and Sao Tome and Principe, decided to open their consulates in Laayoune, a small town claimed by the SADR. In Western Sahara, such steps were perceived as flagrant violations of international law, UN and General Assembly resolutions on the decolonization of Western Sahara. The SADR protest was supported by Algeria, Polisario’s traditional sponsor, Namibia, and several other African countries that have recognized SADR independence.

The danger of the current escalating conflict in Western Sahara is that a new war could not only scorch Morocco and the SADR, but also spill over into Algeria. In this situation, with African countries and the Arab world deeply concerned about the events in Western Sahara, Egypt has taken the initiative to play the role of mediator and peacemaker, calling on Morocco, Polisario and Algeria to refrain from further escalation.

To better understand the situation, it is necessary to recall that Western Sahara was under Spanish control until 1953. But when a new political-military organization, the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y Río de Oro (Polisario), appeared in the territory, it began to advocate the independence of the two regions, with Algerian support, without ruling out the possibility of armed struggle. As a result, Madrid abandoned its colony and withdrew its troops, to be replaced by soldiers from Morocco and Mauritania. The fighting continued until 1991, when representatives of Rabat and Polisario signed a UN-brokered ceasefire agreement.

The people of Western Sahara were given the opportunity to determine the fate of their land, including through a referendum in 1992, but due to disagreements over who could participate, the vote did not take place. Subsequently, Morocco refused to support the idea of calling a new referendum, agreeing only to grant autonomy within the state.

Today about 80% of Western Sahara is controlled by Rabat, the remaining 20%, which is mostly desert surface, has gone to the rebels.

On the issue of ownership of the disputed territories the international community has remained neutral for the last 30 years, 117 out of 194 UN member states still do not recognize the independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, in fact, as well as the sovereignty of Morocco over these lands. However, Algeria, Argentina and several other countries sided with the SADR, and France, along with 19 states, agreed to a plan for autonomy in the region. Forty-five states, including Russia, advocate a people’s right to self-determination.

As for Rabat’s resumption of diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, one can hardly expect any active steps from the kingdom in the near future. First, they clearly intend to wait for the new US administration’s decision on Trump’s “initiatives,” especially with regard to support for “kingdom sovereignty over the Western Sahara territories in Africa.” In addition, the Supreme Court of the Kingdom has already received a lawsuit from a group of lawyers demanding the cancellation of the deal with Israel, and until the end of this lawsuit official Rabat is not willing to take any action against Israel.

As for the Biden administration, it had another urgent task to clean up Trump’s “Augean Stables,” only this time in relation to the situation in Morocco-Western Sahara-Algeria, and in the North African region as a whole.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

US poised for Russia sanctions as Washington claims ‘millions’ support jailed Navalny, hope for regime change

RT | February 9, 2021

America’s top diplomat says the US is mulling how to best penalize Russia over the alleged poisoning of opposition figure Alexey Navalny, but he simultaneously claims Washington is not seeking to influence the situation.

Speaking to CNN on Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told viewers “it seems apparent that a chemical weapon was used to try to kill Mr Navalny.”

“That violates the chemical weapons convention and other obligations that Russia has,” he said. “We’re looking at the situation very carefully and when we have the results we’ll look at that in the appropriate way.”

Blinken added that “the fact that Russia feels compelled – that Mr Putin feels compelled – to try to silence one voice, speaks volumes about how important that voice is and how it is representative of so many millions of Russians who want to be heard and who are fed up with the corruption and the kleptocracy.”

Thousands took to the streets of cities across the country to demonstrate for the release of the jailed anti-corruption campaigner over the past fortnight. However, further rallies that had been expected were called off amid lower numbers and an insistence from organizers that the movement should “end on a high note.” Unexpectedly, on Tuesday, Navalny associate Leonid Volkov, who is based in Lithuania, announced a new form of protest for the coming days, asking people to shine flashlights in their neighborhood gardens.

Research published last week found that only one in 20 of 1,600 Russians surveyed came up with Navalny’s name as a political figure that they trust. The fieldwork was conducted by the Levada Center, which is registered as a ‘foreign agent’ by the Ministry of Justice over links to funding from abroad.

While former President Donald Trump was said to have been ambivalent about international blocs like NATO and organizations like the UN, analysts have said that Biden’s team is far more preoccupied with seeing the US play a leading role in them. Blinken appeared to confirm that view, claiming that “the world doesn’t organize itself. If we’re not in there every day helping to do some of that organizing – to write the rules and shape the norms that sort of govern the ways that countries relate to each other, then either someone else is going to do it in our place or maybe, just as bad, nobody does it and then you have chaos.”

However, while he expressed hope that the momentum from previous protests would have a profound effect on the country, Blinken denied that the US was stoking tensions. “I think the Russian government would make a mistake in attributing to outside actors, whether it is the United States, European partners or others, responsibility for what is happening,” he said. “This is fundamentally about Russia, about Russia’s future and hopefully about a more democratic system going forward.”

Navalny was educated in the US and was appointed to Yale University’s World Fellow’s program, set up to “create a global network of emerging leaders.” This has led some in the country to suggest that he is more closely aligned to Western governments than many other domestic opposition figures.

Moscow has expressed cynicism over the nature of the US’ interest in the Navalny case. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last week that Washington didn’t need a genuine reason for sanctions. “They will always find one or make one up,” she said.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Merck statement against ivermectin exposing ‘big pharma’ lobbyists

Swiss Policy Research | February 7, 2021

A positive aspect of the recent anti-ivermectin statement by Merck is that dozens of ‘big pharma’ lobbyists, who immediately shared the statement on Twitter, are now getting exposed, among them many journalists, a US NIH representative, some industry-linked professors, and one of the most influential German government ‘covid science communicators’.

Keep in mind that Merck provided no evidence, whatsoever, for any of its claims, did not refute any of the existing evidence, studies and meta-studies, and falsely claimed ‘unproven safety’. The entire statement is a desperate appeal to (supposed) authority, and anyone pushing it is simply exposing themselves as a lobbyist not interested in actual evidence-based medicine.

What Merck could have done, but didn’t do, since April 2020, is running and publishing its own ivermectin trial. What Merck also could have done, but didn’t do, is disclosing in its statement that it recently signed a $356 million deal to supply the US with a much more expensive, newly developed experimental anti-covid drug. But doing this may not have been in Merck’s interest, of course.

Update 1FLCCC Alliance Response to Merck

See alsoThe fight against ivermectin has begun.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

For Josep Borrell, Russia will remain a ‘mystery inside an enigma’

By Johanna Ross | February 9, 2021

It’s been a quotation cited repeatedly to describe the difficulties faced by western policy-makers towards Russia. Winston Churchill famously said the country was ‘a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.  Back in 1939, when he broadcast this speech, just as Britain had declared war on Germany, Churchill said that he thought he had the ‘key’ to unlocking the secret of Russian foreign policy and that was, he said, ‘Russian national interest’.

I assume that Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, who visited Moscow last Friday, is familiar with this quotation. And it seems that for him, Russia has remained something of a mystery. For upon his return to Brussels, after what his European colleagues have termed a ‘humiliating’ trip (they are now demanding his resignation), Borrell wrote a blog post outlining what was essentially his complete failure to engage with his Russian counterpart. “My meeting with Minister Lavrov highlighted that Europe and Russia are drifting apart”, he wrote in a piece published on Sunday evening. “It seems that Russia is progressively disconnecting itself from Europe.”

What is surprising for the Russians, is the absolute inability of these European policy-makers to read and comprehend the Russian position. Western diplomats in this regard seem to be diplomatically autistic. And far from taking tips from Russian political analysts and think-tanks, they turn to the same pseudo ‘Russia-experts’ and western academics, the majority of whom churn out age-old anti-Russian rhetoric like a broken record. As Professor Stephen Cohen once told me:

‘The idea that we have to fight Russian disinformation is now very profitable in the US; everybody will give you money. And if you don’t have a particularly big brain, it’s a good way to pretend you’re an intellectual and get paid for it.’

As a consequence, we are sadly no further in unravelling the ‘mystery inside the enigma’.

Churchill was close to the truth when he said that ‘Russian national interest’ was a key factor in understanding Russia – but that’s hardly a secret. Every country acts according to its national interest. What is lacking, particularly at the moment from western policy makers, is the ability to treat Russia according to how they themselves expect to be treated. Like a naughty schoolboy, Russia and its leader are constantly being lectured on how to behave. The problem is, the ‘adults’ – in this case the West – are guilty of the same offences that Russia is being accused of. As Vladimir Putin noted during his speech at the Munich security conference in 2007:

‘Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.’

Unfortunately, nothing has changed, and the hypocrisy still stinks.

Borrell’s visit is also a classic example of Europeans saying one thing to Russia’s face and another behind its back. For the statements Borrell made after his return to Brussels, as Russian Foreign spokesperson Maria Zakharova remarked on Monday, do not correspond with comments he made when in Moscow. Zakharova expressed surprise at the diplomat’s negative summary of the trip and suggested that his colleagues had influenced him on arrival. But I would add that it is a regular occurrence that western politicians are two-faced when it comes to dialogue with Russia, and that they often place less emphasis on the value of verbal agreements. Take for example the promise of US Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev back in the 1980s that NATO would not expand eastward. For the Russians that assurance meant something, as it is frequently quoted by them to this day; for the Americans it clearly didn’t. Since then NATO has proceeded to encircle Russia to the east.

The reality is that Russia is not going to be dictated to on human rights and freedoms when they are currently being curtailed in the West. It’s not going to be told that opposition protesters are being mal-treated when demonstrators in the US and Europe are regularly manhandled by police. It’s not going to be bullied into releasing Alexei Navalny – a politician with a criminal conviction – when the US and Europe have their own political prisoners, the most famous being Julian Assange. And it’s not going to be harassed about press freedoms when the majority of the western mainstream corporate media play the role of government mouthpieces. Russia is a sovereign nation and won’t be told what to do.

For Borrell et al. this is a problem.  Therefore a stalemate has been reached in EU-Russian relations. Borrell seems resigned to the fact that there will be little improvement in relations in the near future.  This is unfortunate, because it is not something that Russia has wanted. Even as recently as last month, when speaking at the Davos Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin said that Europe and Russia were ‘practically one civilisation’. And yet there is a fundamental difference in mentality which proves impossible to overcome.

It is in Europe’s and the West’s interest, however, to try better to engage with Russia on a level playing field, without taking the moral high ground. Global security and stability are at stake. In addition, Europe currently depends on Russian gas, and will likely always be reliant to some degree on Russia’s vast expanse of natural resources. As renowned academic Andrei Tsygankov has aptly summarised in his book ‘Russia’s Foreign Policy’:

‘Russia is sufficiently big and powerful, and that limits Western ability to influence its developments. Vast territory, enormous natural resources and military capabilities, and a significant political and diplomatic weight in the world have allowed and will continue to allow Russians considerable room for foreign policy maneuvering. It is hard to believe that the West will ever possess enough power to fully determine the shape and direction of Russia’s developments.’

If only Josep Borrell had read this book before he went to Moscow…

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Human Rights Watch denounces Cuba for human rights violations

By Lucas Leiroz | February 9, 2021

Denunciations of human rights violations against Cuba have become routine in the West. For decades, governments, NGOs and activists have denounced the Cuban government for various attitudes of abuse of universal rights, but the sources of such reports and evidence of crimes remain weak and vague. Once again, the NGO Human Rights Watch issued a report warning of an alleged “abusive” situation with regard to human rights on the island – and again the evidence is weak and reveals an ideologized action.

Every year, Human Rights Watch releases its global reports, covering all regions of the planet and warning against alleged human rights violations worldwide. In its 2021 edition, published on January 13, in the topic dedicated to Cuba, several crimes were reported, including alleged arbitrary arrests on the island, lack of freedom of expression, presence of political prisoners in Cuban penitentiaries, travel restrictions and several others acts that are presented to international society as frequent and structural in Cuba.

There are explanations for Human Rights Watch’s frontal opposition to Cuba, which are little publicized in the international media. In the past, the Cuban government has accused the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) of funding more than 20 organizations to promote complaints and defamations against the Latin country, including HRW. NED’s ties to the CIA prompted the Cuban government to veto agents from organizations linked to the NED into the country. In fact, regardless of whether or not there is a plot against the island organized by the NED and the CIA, it is clear that HRW’s annual reports are focused on denouncing and criticizing emerging countries, especially non-aligned nations, anticipating coercive measures taken by the US and other Western powers. This led Havana to endorse the narrative that HRW creates justifications for subsequent coercive measures with its allegations of human rights violations.

The central problem for the credibility of HRW reports is the authenticity of the organization’s sources. The reports are based on data provided by anti-government activists who are ideologically committed to the end of communism and the triumph of American interests on the island. To this end, such activists, who work inside and outside Cuba, adulterate, exaggerate or even create data that does not correspond to the reality of the country, as has been reported several times by Havana. The speech of anonymous activists follows a model predefined by American agencies interested in the fall of the Cuban government. This speech is disseminated by human rights NGOs and finally justifies coercive measures by the American government. For this reason, Havana sees HRW as a threat to its national security and this will not change, even if Washington strengthens its sanctions further, as there is a central ideological incompatibility between these countries that cannot be overcome with mere coercive maneuvers.

Exaggeration is certainly the greatest weapon of these agents. Surely, there are human rights violations in Cuba – just as there are in any nation. There is no country that has been successful in completely abolishing acts contrary to human rights. Many nations may have officially abolished such practices, but they certainly still exist unofficially and, equally, deserve investigation and criticisms. However, this persecution against “human rights violators” is generally applied when the charged state is an emerging nation geopolitically opposed to Washington, like Cuba. In this way, NGOs like HRW observe cases of violation and exaggerate them, claiming that there is a state policy to confront universal rights, when, in fact, they are only marginal practices that exist in any country.

Just as mistakes are exaggerated, merits are ignored. Cuba has some of the best social indicators on the American continent, being a global reference in education and with some of the most qualified medical professionals in the world. Havana is responsible for several humanitarian missions sending doctors and equipment to nations in need of medical care, including not only poor countries, but developed states in emergencies, such as Italy during the pandemic. Furthermore, Cuba seems to be advanced in many agendas exalted in the West. For example, women occupy 51% of the deputies in the National Assembly and are 62% of the country’s scientists – which are remarkably high numbers by Western standards. These indices show that, with or without structural disrespect, there is undeniable progress in terms of human rights, and this cannot be ignored.

However, Havana is right to think that HRW’s reports are not by chance. What we should expect for the future is the resurgence of a focus of tensions between Washington and Havana. Trump, in his last days in government, reversed a process of rapprochement between the countries when he considered Cuba again as a terrorist financing nation – a totally unreasonable accusation and without any material evidence, which Trump certainly did not believe, but made this decision as a strategic maneuver to harm Biden and transfer power to his successor with more international tensions. Biden promised to review Trump’s policy against Cuba but gave no details of exactly what points he will reform. However, a peaceful policy for Havana was never expected from the new American president. Biden’s reforms are likely to occur, more likely, to facilitate the flow of migration and to include “humanitarian” issues in relations, shifting the focus of tensions from a security and defense perspective to one of respect for human rights and democracy.

In practice, this means that Biden must try to harm Cubans even more by imposing international sanctions in order to force Havana to comply with humanitarian standards that are already respected but whose compliance will never be recognized by NGOs committed to the American government.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | 1 Comment


February 7, 2021

Dr Reiner Fuellmich is a German American lawyer with experience going after large companies like Deutsche Bank. He is a member of the German Corona Investigative Committee. He discusses the current situation and his efforts to bring justice to the situation.

This interview was done as apart of the full length documentary. We are releasing the full interview for the betterment of public understanding of the situation.

The full film, when released, will be available at

February 9, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | 3 Comments