Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

COVID-19 Fatalities 16.7 Times Too High Due to ‘Illegal’ Inflation

GreenMedInfo Research Group | February 1, 2021

In March 2020, the CDC changed the way COVID-19 deaths are reported on death certificates, resulting in a dramatic — and possibly illegal — inflation of fatalities that drove restrictive public health policies threatening health freedom

Only 6% of COVID-19 deaths include only COVID-19 as the cause on the death certificate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This means for the other 94%, additional causes are listed, with an average of 2.9 additional conditions or causes of death included.[i]

“This is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis,” according to a study by the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), as it reveals that many “COVID-19 deaths” may have been due to other causes. In fact, the CDC published new guidelines on March 24, 2020, which alter the way deaths are recorded exclusively in cases of COVID-19.

The guidelines were published without peer-review or opportunity for public comment, and resulted in a dramatic and misleading inflation in “COVID-19” deaths, which would have been deemed due to other causes using the CDC’s longstanding system of data collection and reporting established in 2003. As IPAK’s report questioned:[ii]

“Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?”

CDC Changed Death Certificate Recording Rules for COVID-19 Only

IPAK’s report reveals a historical timeline of events showing how a number of incidents conspired to inflate COVID-19 fatality data and, in turn, justify restrictive public health policies like lockdowns, quarantines, business closures and social distancing. One key issue has to do with the way cause of death is recorded in the case of comorbidities.

In 2003, the CDC published the “Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting” and “Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death.” Part I of a death certificate includes the immediate cause of death, listed in order from the official cause of death (a) down to underlying causes that contributed to death (in descending order of importance, as b, c, d).

Part II of the death certificate includes other significant conditions that are not related to the underlying causes in Part I. According to the report:[iii]

“Comorbid conditions have been listed on Part I of death certificates as causes of death per the CDC Handbook since 2003 to ensure accurate reporting can be developed. Comorbidities are seldom placed in Part II. Part II is typically the section where coroners and medical examiners can list recent infections as underlying, initiating factors.

Prior to the CDC’s March 24th decision, any co-morbidities would have been listed in Part I rather than Part II and initiating factors such as infections including the SARS-COV-2 virus, would have been listed on the last line in Part I or more commonly in Part II.”

After the March 2020 guideline change, however, comorbidities were to be listed in Part II, which meant COVID-19 could be listed exclusively in Part I:[iv]

“This has had a significant impact on data collection accuracy and integrity. It has resulted in the potential false inflation of COVID-19 fatality data and is a potential breach of federal laws governing information quality.”

New CDC Guidelines Inflate COVID-19 Deaths by at Least 16.7-Fold

The report examined COVID-19 fatalities through August 23, 2020 and compared them using the CDC’s guidelines that had been in place since 2003 and those put into place in March 2020 for COVID-19. You can see the results in their figure below, which shows, “Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 [fatalities would] be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported.”[v]


Image source: IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020, Figure 9

‘This Leaves Me Speechless’

On Twitter, investigative health journalist Nicolas Pineault wrote, “If this is accurate, this leaves me speechless.”[vi] Indeed, not only did the CDC leave no records as to how it made the decision to change how deaths are reported, but some estimates suggest they may have resulted in an inflation of COVID-19 fatalities of over 90%, while violating U.S. law:[vii]

“Previous reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated the actual number of COVID-19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.

We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS [National Vital Statistics System] to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure ‘the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.'”

The public health implications of an artificial inflation of COVID-19 deaths are immense, as rates of anxietydepression[viii] and suicidal thoughts[ix] are on the rise — a direct result of restrictive COVID-19 health policies.

Only with accurate data can individuals and health officials make decisions to truly protect health, and as the report noted, “It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis.”[x] It’s also one more reason why now is more important than ever to take a stand for health freedom.


References

 

[i] U.S. CDC January 27, 2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#ExcessDeaths

 

[ii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

[iii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

[iv] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

[v] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

[vi] Twitter, Nick Pineault October 15, 2020 https://twitter.com/nickpineault1/status/1316744440917250049

 

[vii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

[viii] University of Wisconsin, The Impact of School Closures and Sport Cancellations on the Health of Wisconsin Adolescent Athletes https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/33fe-2195426/McGuine_study.pdf#_ga=2.138358896.1736658140.1612045938-245521230.1612045938

 

[ix] BMJ 2020;371:m4095 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4095

 

[x] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

 

© 2021 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC.

Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here //www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | 1 Comment

Coronapocalypse; Big Pharma’s Doomsday Vaccine #666

By Mike Whitney • Unz Review • February 19, 2021

Here’s your Vaccine puzzler for the day:

What do Dr. Barton WilliamsHank Aaron, and 46 elderly residents in a Spanish nursing home all have in common?

Answer— They all died shortly after getting the Covid-19 vaccine.

But let’s not jump to conclusions, after all, in every case, the media has assured us that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths. Do you believe that?

Of course, not, but that will probably not undermine your trust in vaccines because–as you know– not trusting vaccines is tantamount to putting on a tinfoil hat and blabbering conspiracy theories about pedophile rings in the basement of pizza parlors. It’s absolute lunacy. One must never question the unshakable integrity of the big pharmaceutical companies who only produce these miracle drugs for purely philanthropic reasons. It’s inconceivable that these experimental concoctions –which have never been tested on animals or undergone long-term trials– might have been created for political purposes rather than medicinal. Is that even remotely possible?

Yes, it is possible, but it’s also another crackpot conspiracy theory, so shut up and take the jab, right?

Wrong, because everything about the Covid vaccine is wrong, just like everything about Covid-mania is wrong. It’s all unprecedented, suspicious and, frankly, weird. None of it passes the smell test, none of it. When have we ever locked down the entire country to slow the spread of a virus? When have we ever quarantined 300 million healthy people, ordered everyone to wear masks, shut down businesses, bars and schools, and pushed the economy off a cliff?

When?

Never.

When have public health experts and their Democrat allies usurped emergency powers and ruled by executive fiat essentially short-circuiting the constitutional powers of the state legislatures?

When have the media and the Tech Giants removed scientists, epidemiologists, virologists and statisticians from their platforms because their professional views conflicted with the nonsensical “official narrative” of white-coat phonies like Tony Fauci?

When have state agencies actively taken part in the purging of the accounts of individuals whose opinions do not support the mass vaccination of millions of people with a toxic cocktail that may-or-may-not impact long-term health, fertility and, yes, life itself?

When has a giant media organization, like AP, launched a full-page attack on “conspiracy theorists” whose views on the shadowy origins of the Covid infection do not match their own? (“The superspreaders behind top COVID-19 conspiracy theories“, The Seattle Times ) And why does it matter to them? Is the MSM so insecure that they feel they must viciously belittle those people with whom they disagree rather that provide objective in-depth reporting? And how does this spiteful behavior affect the public? Do people want to see their media act as enforcers of state doctrine by targeting and crushing anyone who doesn’t parrot the party doctrine? Do they like it when journalists become attack dogs for the political establishment and big pharma? Is that why we have a First Amendment?

But–media aside– the experience of the last year has been completely weird, hasn’t it? And, yet, if one simply speculates on what they think might be driving the weirdness, they are immediately smeared, censored and dragged through the mud by an army of trolls. So much for free speech, eh?

Is that normal or is someone very afraid that they are losing their control over the “spinning” of information? This is the reaction that one would expect from someone who is accustomed to monopolizing information and is determined not to share that power with anyone else. It’s also the behavior of someone who is not being completely straightforward about their objectives, someone who has something to hide.

So, what are they hiding? Who is pulling the media’s strings? Who gives Fauci and the Democrat Governors their marching orders? Who’s calling the shots in this pandemic fiasco or aren’t you the slightest bit curious?

Imagine for a minute that everything we are currently experiencing is not the random response of a government that is trying to muddle through a thorny and stressful crisis, but part of a broader plan to generate as much hysteria as possible in order to create a submissive public that clicks its heels and follows orders without question? Is that too far-fetched?

And let’s say, that at the very peak of the hysteria, a bolt of lightning appears in the night sky and suddenly there is a miracle drug, a vaccine, that promises to deliver the people from their collective misery and return them safely to normal life. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit coincidental? Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that this life-saving vaccine was invented just days after the presidential election. (Nothing to see here, move along.) It almost seems like it was part of a script, but that couldn’t be true, because that would mean that our leaders are scheming dishonest miscreants who can’t be trusted. Perish the thought.

But ask yourself this: Who is touting this new wonder drug and insisting that all 7 billion people on the planet get inoculated? Is it the scientists, virologists and epidemiologists who have no dog in the fight and who’s judgements are based on the science alone, or is it the conflicted state bureaucrats, the public health toadies and do-goodie billionaires who seek access to the personal biology of all humanity in order to effect the changes they believe will trim the world’s population and reverse the projected acceleration of climate change? Which is it?

And why– you may ask– have these do-goodie-billionaire climate activists settled on public health when their real passion is depopulation and global warming?

Good question.

Isn’t it because they have identified vaccines as the access-point they need to achieve their ambitions? Isn’t that why they have spent decades creating the critical infrastructure for the global public health organizations, not to improve the lives and health of impoverished mothers and children in Africa and India, but to expand and reinforce the tentacles of this new international vaccine-deployment hydra that can reach across the earth and draw every human being into its oily grip.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory. This infrastructure actually exists and it has been greatly expanded and strengthened in the last decade. But, why?

I would argue that this infrastructure was not painstakingly assembled to save humanity from the “killer virus”, but to implement a strategy for inserting needles in the arms of 7 billion people. This is not philanthropy. This is something else altogether. Something calculating, underhanded, and sinister. But that is just my opinion.

Of course, it’s all a crazy conspiracy theory and even if it is happening it’s not really happening because our real owners and our new Reality Czar have already decided that it’s not happening. In fact, they are reaching out across the Internet to “disappear” anyone who dares to mention what they think is actually going on. That said, we still must reconcile all the inconsistencies, half-truths and outright lies with the fact that people are dying after taking the jab. That’s the one fact that cannot be denied.

So, how do we resolve these inconsistencies? How do we explain the permanent state of emergency that only serves to strengthen the power of tyrants and their lackeys, how do we reconcile the lockdowns, the masks, the school closures, and the deliberate obliteration of our civilization for a virus that kills just 1 in every 400 people?

It’s impossible. It can’t be done. When the government goes crazy and loses the confidence of the people, skeptics will come up with theories that explain what’s going on. It’s only natural. And that’s what’s happening now.

As for the vaccines, well, we know that reputable professionals have warned us that these zombie injections could impact fertility health and mortality, but is that probable? After all, the experts, celebrities and media are promoting these mRNA vaccines with more exuberance than any Madison Avenue product-launch in history. Maybe we should set aside our concerns and just go with the flow. After all, what could go wrong? Check out this except from an interview with Dr. Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology. Here’s what he said:

The mRNA lipid-coated PEG-construct– by Moderna’s own study–does not stay localized but spreads throughout the body including the brain. Found in animal studies in bone marrow, brain, lymph nodes, heart, kidneys liver, lungs etc Doctors are saying that the vaccine does NOT cross the blood-brain barrier, but that is NOT true. … If it reaches the brain there will be an auto immune response that will cause inflammation What characterizes virtually all neuro-degenerative diseases is this misfolded protein that is characteristic to Lou Gerrigs disease, to Alzheimer’s, to Parkinsons to Huntington’s etc. They are different proteins, but they tend to form these sheets of misfolded proteins called Beta Sheets. Now you are asking cells in various parts of the body–including the brain– to make a lot of these proteins and release them to the outside, and, are we sure that’s what it’s all doing? Are you getting clusters of misfolded proteins inside neurons? That would be a bad thing to do. So you’d like to know where it is, how much of it there is, and which groups of neuronal groups its targeted. .and those are the kinds of questions you like the companies to have solved long before they got authorization and discovered some years later that they have a problem.”

This is a vast experiment that should have been done in the lab on animals and now it is being done on people. The potential is that you are going to harm a lot of people while you do this experiment.” (“NEUROSCIENTIST’S CONCERNS ABOUT COVID VACCINES”, Chris Shaw, Ph.D, Specialist in Neuroplasticity and Neuropathology)

Sound serious?

It does to me. Frankly, I’d rather not have synthetic toxins from an experimental vaccine floating around in my brain, but that’s just me.

Now check out this clip from an interview with Robert F Kennedy Jr for a bit of background on these mRNA vaccines:

“What we know about coronavirus from 30 years of experience is that a coronavirus vaccine has a unique peculiarity, which is any attempted making of the vaccine has resulted in the creation of a class of antibodies that actually make vaccinated people sicker when they ultimately suffer exposure to the wild virus. Following the SARS epidemic that began in 2002, China launched a concerted effort to develop a coronavirus vaccine. They succeeded in developing 30 promising models, and they chose the four “best in class” to fabricate and then test on ferrets, the animal most analogous to human beings when it comes to upper respiratory infections.

The ferrets all developed admirable, robust, and durable antibody responses, and the scientists believed they had hit the jackpot. But then, when the animals suffered exposure to the wild virus, something frightening happened. The vaccinated animals sickened and died with body-wide inflammation. The vaccine had created a condition known as paradoxical inherent immune response, which amplified the injury caused by the illness rather than preventing it.

The scientists at that time recalled a similar occurrence from the 1960s where the NIH had conducted studies on a vaccine for RSV, an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus. The 35 children in that study had developed a strong antibody response but had become terribly ill upon exposure to wild RSV. Two of the children died. Remembering this incident, the scientists in 2012 abandoned their efforts to create that vaccine. And that is why today you are hearing dire warnings from unexpected quarters… who have all warned that a coronavirus vaccine may end up making people sicker from coronavirus rather than avoiding the disease.” (“Interview with Robert F Kennedy J”, Children’s Health Defense)

Repeat: “when the animals suffered exposure to the wild virus, something frightening happened. The vaccinated animals sickened and died with body-wide inflammation.”

This is recurrent theme when one reads alternate literature on the mRNA vaccine. It may also explain why the vaccine manufacturers skipped animal trials before seeking approval from the FDA. We should also note, that none of the current crop of vaccines have concluded their Phase 3 trials which will not be finished for two years from today. Readers should not find that reassuring.

Let’s take a minute and dig a little deeper into this idea that vaccines can actually make you sicker and perhaps die. Here’s a blurb from a research paper published in Nature in July 2020 on the condition called Antibody-dependent Enhancement:

“Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies because the mechanisms that underlie antibody protection against any virus have a theoretical potential to amplify the infection or trigger harmful immunopathology. This possibility requires careful consideration at this critical point in the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)…

The implications of our lack of knowledge are twofold. First, comprehensive studies are urgently needed to define clinical correlates of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Second, because ADE of disease cannot be reliably predicted after either vaccination or treatment with antibodies—regardless of what virus is the causative agent—it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 move forward…

Conclusion

It is clear that after many years, and considerable attention, the understanding of ADE of disease after either vaccination or administration of antiviral antibodies is insufficient to confidently predict that a given immune intervention for a viral infection will have negative outcomes in humans…

Additional mechanism-focused studies are needed to determine whether small-animal and NHP models of virus infection, including for SARS-CoV-2, can predict the probable benefits or risks of vaccines or passive-antibody interventions in humans…

In the meantime, it will be necessary to directly test safety and define correlates of protection conferred by vaccines and antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and other viral pathogens in human clinical trials.” (“A perspective on potential antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2“, Nature)

Let’s summarize:

  1. You could get sick and die. (Quote– “Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) creates the “potential to amplify the infection or trigger harmful immunopathology.”)
  2. We don’t know what we don’t know. (Quote–“…ADE of disease cannot be reliably predicted after either vaccination or treatment with antibodies… it will be essential to depend on careful analysis of safety in humans as immune interventions for COVID-19 move forward…”)
  3. We are flying blind and hoping for the best. (Quote– “Additional mechanism-focused studies are needed to determine whether small-animal and NHP models of virus infection, including for SARS-CoV-2, can predict the probable benefits or risks of vaccines or passive-antibody interventions in humans…”)
  4. Let’s keep testing because we have no idea if what we are doing is safe. (Quote– “In the meantime, it will be necessary to directly test safety and define correlates of protection conferred by vaccines and antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and other viral pathogens in human clinical trials.”)

So, while Shaw sees one set of potential problems, Kennedy sees others altogether different. But these are just the tip of the iceberg because Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, believes the mRNA vaccines could cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in ways not assessed in safety trials. In fact, he even wrote a detailed letter to the FDA in December warning them explicitly about these potential dangers. Here’s an excerpt from an article at Global Research that provides the details:

“I am concerned about the possibility that the new vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.”

Whelan was referring to the fact that mRNA vaccines work by incorporating the genetic blueprint for the key spike protein on the virus surface into a formula that — when injected into humans — instructs our own cells to make the spike protein….

Based on the research conducted to date, it is very likely that some recipients of the spike protein mRNA vaccines will experience the same symptoms and injuries associated with the virus.

Again, according to Whelan, “the potential to cause microvascular injury (inflammation and small blood clots called microthrombi) to the brain, heart, liver and kidney … were not assessed in the safety trials.”..

Ignoring these valid and scientifically supported warnings may result in hundreds of millions of people suffering potentially deadly injuries or permanent damage following vaccination. It will also further erode the dwindling confidence that our country has in our federal regulatory agencies to protect the health of all Americans

Unfortunately, Whelan’s concerns were not acknowledged, and the agency instead relied on the limited clinical trial data. The VRBPAC endorsed the use of the Pfizer vaccine on Dec. 10. The following day, the FDA issued the first COVID-19 vaccine emergency use authorization allowing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to be widely distributed in individuals 16 and older without calling for the additional studies that Whelan felt were critical to assure safety of the vaccine, especially in children.” (“Could Spike Protein in Moderna, Pfizer Vaccines Cause Blood Clots, Brain Inflammation and Heart Attacks?” Global Research)

These are just a few of the many warnings that medical professionals have issued publicly. They reflect the growing concerns about this new regime of dodgy vaccines. Needless to say, their warnings have either fallen on deaf ears or been lost in the celebratory din surrounding the new wonder drug. As we speak, millions of people around the world are being injected with an experimental nanoparticle that may-or-may-not impact their health and well-being for the rest of their lives. They have based their decision not on sound science and long-term outcomes, but on relentless fearmongering followed by a garish and overpowering media blitz. This crass manipulation of public perceptions precludes what any reasonable person would call “informed consent”. We are being led like sheep to the slaughter.

So, here’s the million-dollar question: Are the Covid vaccines safe or not?

How could they be? They were not sufficiently tested, the technology is new and experimental, Phase 3 Trials have not been completed, thorough animal trials were never conducted, there is no data on long-term adverse side effects, and the final product was ramrodded through the “rubber stamp” FDA under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) provision. On top of that, medical professionals are now warning us that the vaccines could “cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys.”

The American people need to consider these things before they make their decision

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Assigning Blame for the Blackouts in Texas

By Planning Engineer | Climate Etc. | February 18, 2021 

The story from some media sources is that frozen wind turbines are responsible for the power shortfalls in Texas. Other media sources emphasize that fossil fuel resources should shoulder the blame because they have large cold induced outages as well and also some natural gas plants could not obtain fuel.

Extreme cold should be expected to cause significant outages of both renewable and fossil fuel based resources. Why would anyone expect that sufficient amounts of natural gas would be available and deliverable to supply much needed generation? Considering the extreme cold, nothing particularly surprising is happening within any resource class in Texas. The technologies and their performance were well within the expected bounds of what could have been foreseen for such weather conditions. While some degradation should be expected, what is happening in Texas is a departure from what they should be experiencing. Who or what then is responsible for the shocking consequences produced by Texas’s run in with this recent bout of extreme cold?

TRADITIONAL PLANNING

Traditionally, responsibility for ensuring adequate capacity during extreme conditions has fallen upon individual utility providers. A couple decades ago I was responsible for the load forecasting, transmission planning and generation planning efforts of an electric cooperative in the southeastern US. My group’s projections, studies and analysis supported our plans to meet customer demand under forecasted peak load conditions. We had seen considerable growth in residential and commercial heat pumps. At colder temperature these units stop producing heat efficiently and switch to resistance heating which causes a spike in demand. Our forecasts showed that we would need to plan for extra capacity to meet this potential demand under extreme conditions in upcoming winters.

I was raked over the coals and this forecast was strongly challenged. Providing extra generation capacity, ensuring committed (firm) deliveries of gas during the winter, upgrading transmission facilities are all expensive endeavors. Premiums are paid to ensure gas delivery and backup power and there is no refund if it’s not used. Such actions increased the annual budget and impact rates significantly for something that is not likely to occur most years, even if the extreme weather projections are appropriate. You certainly don’t want to over-estimate peak demand due to the increasing costs associated with meeting that demand. But back then we were obligated to provide for such “expected” loads. Our CEO, accountants and rate makers would ideally have liked a lower extreme demand projection as that would in most cases have kept our cost down. It was challenging to hold firm and stand by the studies and force the extra costs on our Members.

Fortuitously for us, we were hit with extreme winter conditions just when the plan went in place. Demand soared and the planned capacity we had provided was needed. A neighboring entity was hit with the same conditions. Like us they had significant growth in heat pumps – but they had not forecasted their extreme weather peak to climb as we had. They had to go to the overburdened markets to find energy and make some curtailments. The cost of replacement power turned out to be significantly greater proportionately than we incurred by planning for the high demand. They suffered real consequences due to the shortcomings of their planning efforts.

However, if extreme winter had not occurred, our neighbor’s costs would have been lower than ours that year and that may have continued many years into the future as long as we didn’t see extreme winter conditions. Instead of the praise we eventually received, there would have at least been some annoyance directed at my groups for contributing to “un-needed expenditures”. That’s the way of the world. You can often do things a little cheaper, save some money and most of the time you can get away with it. But sometimes/eventually you cut it too close and the consequences can be extreme.

The Approach in Texas

Who is responsible for providing adequate capacity in Texas during extreme conditions? The short answer is no one. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) looks at potential forecasted peak conditions and expected available generation and if there is sufficient margin they assume everything will be all right. But unlike utilities under traditional models, they don’t ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate. They count on enough resources being there because they assume that is in their owner’s best interests. Unlike all other US energy markets, Texas does not even have a capacity market. By design they rely solely upon the energy market. This means that entities profit only from the actual energy they sell into the system. They do not see any profit from having stand by capacity ready to help out in emergencies. The energy only market works well under normal conditions to keep prices down. While generally markets are often great things, providing needed energy during extreme conditions evidently is not their forte. Unlike the traditional approach where specific entities have responsibilities to meet peak levels, in Texas the responsibility is diffuse and unassigned. There is no significant long term motivation for entities to ensure extra capacity just in case it may be needed during extreme conditions. Entities that might make that gamble theoretically can profit when markets skyrocket, but such approaches require tremendous patience and the ability to weather many years of potential negative returns.

This article from GreenTech media praises energy only markets as do many green interests. Capacity markets are characterized as wasteful. Andrew Barlow, Head of the PUC in Texas is quoted as follows, “Legislators have shown strong support for the energy-only market that has fueled the diversification of the state’s electricity generation fleet and yielded significant benefits for customers while making Texas the national leader in installed wind generation. ”

Why has Capacity been devalued?

Traditional fossil fuel generation has (as does most hydro and nuclear) inherent capacity value. That means such resources generally can be operated with a high degree of reliability and dependability. With incentives they can be operated so that they will likely be there when needed. Wind and solar are intermittent resources, working only under good conditions for wind and sun, and as such do not have capacity value unless they are paired with costly battery systems.

If you want to achieve a higher level of penetration from renewables, dollars will have to be funneled away from traditional resources towards renewables. For high levels of renewable penetration, you need a system where the consumers’ dollars applied to renewable generators are maximized. Rewarding resources for offering capacity advantages effectively penalizes renewables. As noted by the head of the PUC in Texas, an energy only market can fuel diversification towards intermittent resources. It does this because it rewards only energy that is fed into the grid, not backup power. (Side note-it’s typical to provide “renewable” resources preference for feeding into the grid as well. Sometimes wind is compensated for feeding into the grid even during periods of excess generation when fossil fuel resources are penalized. But that’s another article.)

Traditional planning studies might recognize that wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel (more so under extreme conditions) such that if you have these backup generators its much cheaper to use and fuel them, than to add wind farms with the accompanying significant investment for concrete, rare earth metals, vast swaths of land … . Traditional planning approaches often have to go to get around this “bias” of favoring capacity providing resources over intermittent resources.

When capacity value is rewarded, this makes the economics of renewables much less competitive. Texas has stacked the deck to make wind and solar more competitive than they could be in a system that better recognizes the value of dependable resources which can supply capacity benefits. An energy only market helps accomplish the goal of making wind and solar more competitive. Except capacity value is a real value. Ignoring that, as Texas did, comes with real perils.

In Texas now we are seeing the extreme shortages and market price spikes that can result from devaluing capacity. The impacts are increased by both having more intermittent resources which do not provide capacity and also because owners and potential owners of resources which could provide capacity are not incentivized to have those units ready for backup with firm energy supplies.

Personal Observations

Wind and solar have value and can be added to power systems effectively in many instances. But seeking to attain excessive levels of wind and solar quickly becomes counterproductive. It is difficult to impossible to justify the significant amounts of wind and solar penetration desired by many policy makers today using principals of good cost allocation. Various rate schemes and market proposals have been developed to help wind and solar become more competitive. But they come with costs, often hidden. As I’ve written before, it may be because transmission providers have to assume the costs and build a more expensive system to accommodate them. It may be that rates and markets unfairly punish other alternatives to give wind and solar an advantage. It may be that they expose the system to greater risks than before. It may be that they eat away at established reliability levels and weaken system performance during adverse conditions. In a fair system with good price signals today’s wind and solar cannot achieve high penetration levels in a fair competition.

Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close to the skill sets needed for such an evaluation. Furthermore, while policy makers could listen to experts, their voices are drowned out by those with vested interests in wind and solar technology who garner considerable support from those ideologically inclined to support renewables regardless of impacts.

A simpler approach to understanding the ineffectiveness of unbridled advocacy for wind and solar is to look at those areas which have heavily invested in these intermittent resources and achieved higher penetration levels of such resources. Typically electric users see significant overall increases in the cost of energy delivered to consumers. Emissions of CO2 do not uniformly decrease along with employment of renewables, but may instead increase due to how back up resources are operated. Additionally reliability problems tend to emerge in these systems. Texas, a leader in wind, once again is added to the experience gained in California, Germany and the UK showing that reliability concerns and outages increase along with greater employment of intermittent resources.

Anyone can look at Texas and observe that fossil fuel resources could have performed better in the cold. If those who owned the plants had secured guaranteed fuel, Texas would have been better off. More emergency peaking units would be a great thing to have on hand. Why would generators be inclined to do such a thing? Consider, what would be happening if the owners of gas generation had built sufficient generation to get through this emergency with some excess power? Instead of collecting $9,000 per MWH from existing functioning units, they would be receiving less than $100 per MWH for the output of those plants and their new plants. Why would anyone make tremendous infrastructure that would sit idle in normal years and serve to slash your revenue by orders of magnitudes in extreme conditions?

The incentive for gas generation to do the right thing was taken away by Texas’s deliberate energy only market strategy. The purpose of which was to aid the profitability of intermittent wind and solar resources and increase their penetration levels. I don’t believe anyone has ever advanced the notion that fossil fuel plants might operate based on altruism. Incentives and responsibility need to be paired. Doing a post-mortem on the Texas situation ignoring incentives and responsibility is inappropriate and incomplete.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

Stock of Alt-Energy Quadrupled during the Pandemic. What’s Up?

By Leo Goldstein | Watts Up With That? | February 19, 2021

The COVID-19 epidemic and the response to it have devastated the economy. However, the alternative energy stock indexes quadrupled on average, including 150% growth before the US elections.

Alt-energy (alternative energy) market performance can be captured in the performance of the leading alt-energy ETFs (exchange traded funds): QCLNPBW, and TAN. In addition to alt-energy, these ETFs also hold non-energy manufacturing and service companies, critically dependent on climate alarmism. Thus, the assets of any of these ETFs can be used as a financial index, tracking climate alarmism.

After sustaining no growth and moderate losses for five previous years, alt-energy gained an average of 150%, during the first year of COVID-19 (October 25, 2019 to October 30, 2020; see Fig. 1 below). Even more telling, most of these gains happened in the period of draconian and highly politicized lockdowns; see Fig. 2 below.

There is no economic explanation for this steep increase in alt-energy’s valuation. A society under shutdowns or lockdowns consumes less energy and thus, all energy stocks would consequently suffer. Even alt-energy corporations, mainly producing carbon credits, would suffer, because carbon credits are bought mainly by businesses producing or consuming real energy. Additionally, the significant loss of income due to the sudden downturn of the economy would leave little or no funds for anything other than dealing with the current crisis.

One possible explanation for alt-energy’s growth is the expanding political powers of climate alarmism / global governance. Many entities openly celebrated the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity for a power grab, starting with “address[ing] the climate emergency and transition to net zero carbon emissions“. On June 3, 2020, Klaus Schwab, the Head of the World Economic Forum, called for a Great Reset, stating:

“There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.”

“[the pandemic] has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office. Likewise, populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices …“

Alt-energy ETFs valuation quadrupled between Oct 25, 2019 (pre-pandemic) and February 12, 2021 (the first date of this writing). Of course, nearly half of these gains happened after the November 3rd elections. Since this is an expected outcome for political rackets, when their party wins, this article only covers the period before the election: Oct 2019 – Oct 2020.

During this period, the S&P 500 index, capturing some of the largest corporations, only grew by 8%. Small businesses are mostly devastated, and employment in the private sector is in shambles. The following charts compare alt-energy with S&P 500.

The blue line represents the S&P 500. The pink, brown, and violet lines represent alt-energy ETFs. The green and red bars at the bottom of the graph are trade volumes, not used. All time periods start and end on Friday. The charts show changes from the first day in the period, in percent.

Chart 1. The first 12 months of COVID-19 globally; Oct 25, 2019 – Oct 30, 2020; weekly

(Yahoo! Finance)

Notice the jump of the alt-energy ETFs in February 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic.

Chart 2. 6 months of irrational shutdowns, May 1, 2020 – Oct 30, 2020; daily

(Yahoo! Finance)

May 1, 2020 to October 30, 2020, was the period of unjustifiable shutdowns and lockdowns. Some states had shutdowns and others had lockdowns, after it was clear that COVID-19 had a low fatality rate, especially among younger people. By this time, COVID-19 treatments and prophylaxis were found and “the curve” had been bent. See the COVID-19 hospitalization rates and the death rates (which are about four weeks behind).

Remarks:

  • This article was first drafted before alt-energy failed Texas. The Texas blackouts have shown how dependent we are on reliable electric power supply from the grid. There are almost no local emergency power options. Even gas-powered heating units need electricity to work. In many cases, people  lost their internet services  (thanks to Obamanet, in part) even before losing power. Most people are totally dependent on the Internet for information, emergency and/or evacuation orders, etc. Many do not even have AM/FM radios. This is a big problem that hopefully states will address.
  • It should be noted that before the pandemic, alt-energy ETFs had relatively low beta. Beta values for PBW, TAN, and QCLN were 1.01.2, and 1.5, respectively, measured against S&P 500.
  • Big Tech is another economic sector that showed significant gains during the shutdowns and lockdowns. In Big Tech’s case, the causation is well known. Lockdowns forced most business interactions and personal relationships to take place through the Internet, which is dominated by Big Tech. My observation from early June has remained correct – countries suffering under the “rule” of Big Tech (Americas and Europe, excluding Russia and Ukraine) suffered the worst outcomes during COVID-19, especially when adjusted to indoor population densities and healthcare capacities.
  • Alt-energy or “clean energy” refers to energy sources other than fossil fuels, nuclear, and large-scale hydro.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment

How the Big-Tech monopolies are hurting their own value

By David James | OffGuardian | February 19, 2021

The increasing censorship by the tech monopolies is rightly prompting protests from those who see it as an attack on free speech. What has been less noticed, however, is that the social media companies are adopting one of the strangest, and potentially most self-defeating, business strategies ever devised.

They are telling a large slice of their customer base – possibly as many as 100 million in the US and tens of millions elsewhere – to get lost. It represents a massive opportunity for new players and it seems a near certainty that citizen Donald Trump – who is very much a business person and not so much a politician – will be looking closely at it, as will many others.

[David’s prediction was actually right on the money – this was published just the day after he submitted his article – ed.]

It is common for monopolies or oligopolies to treat their customers with disdain, although they usually spend some of their marketing budget pretending otherwise. What never happens, though, is for monopolies to tell a large number of their customers to go away.

It is the equivalent of JD Rockefeller, owner of the infamous monopoly Standard Oil, refusing to sell petrol to anyone who voted for the Democratic party. What it confirms is that these companies have become political entities rather than businesses, a change of direction that will inevitably weaken them.

The social media company most vulnerable is also the most aggressive. Twitter has deplatformed Trump and is removing, at a rapid rate, users it deems to be ‘contravening the terms of service’ or ‘violating community standards’, or whatever. The company is valued at $US57 billion yet its sales are falling and it only started to make profits in 2018, when it recorded a $US191 million profit.

By 2019 it was back in the red and in 2020 it came in with a massive $US1.4 billion loss. Although the share price has almost doubled over the last year – as Keynes said, markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent – the vulnerability is unmistakable.

Such counterintuitive share price movement is not entirely without logic. Investors typically attempt to price the future value of a company, not the present. Social media companies get high valuations because investors expect that they will continue to grow: increase their customers, sales and profits. That is far less likely to happen when you tell a large portion of your customers to look elsewhere.

Facebook and Google are far less vulnerable than Twitter but they also have high valuations. The basic metric used to assess shares is the price-earnings ratio (PE). Facebook’s PE ratio is 35 and Google’s is 30, which are very high for mature companies. Roughly, it means that it will take, respectively, 35 and 30 years to pay back the value of the shares at the current level of profitability.

The only way that makes any sense is for these companies to continue growing, which was already difficult enough. Facebook boasts having over two billion users and Google over four billion users. They already saturate the market; there isn’t much upside. Achieving growth becomes even harder when you deliberately turn away customers. Indeed, it is a deliberate choice to shrink.

Google’s and Facebook’s shift in attitude towards customers is an object lesson in what happens when businesses get too big and underlines why effective anti-trust law is crucial for economic and social health. On the way up, they were exceptionally innovative; so effective at providing better value to advertisers that they destroyed much of the world’s mainstream media industry.

Yet now that they are in a position of power the focus has shifted. They have become increasingly concerned about aligning themselves with politicians and government to get legal protection for their market dominance. When Mark Zuckerberg donated $US400 million to ‘help’ local election offices in the recent US election, the commercial rationale was unmistakable.

To date, new competitors have been relatively small and, some, such as Parler and Telegram, are being openly attacked with blatant anti-competitive tactics by what is surely one of the worst cartels ever. Aggressively doing whatever is required to take out the competition is, of course, another typical behaviour of monopolies.

That is where Trump, and those associated with him, may prove to be significant. The biggest barrier to entry in the digital media space tends not to be the technology but the marketing. That is what Facebook and Google at one time excelled at; it was key to their success. Marketing is labour intensive and costly, which makes it difficult for would-be competitors to gain traction.

If there was an enterprise associated with Trump, however, marketing costs would be far lower. He already appeals to tens of million of supporters who are being told they are not wanted by the tech monopoly. He represents so-called ‘populism’, which is to say he is very popular.

That is what powerful political and corporate elites, and social media companies – ‘GloboCap’ – find intolerable and are attacking in what is being accurately described as an American coup. It is hard to imagine that the potential market pull associated with providing an alternative to what amounts to an attack on democracy will not be exploited commercially.

This is not to suggest that the social media giants will go out of business, although Twitter may get into real trouble. But it is worth noting that very few companies, even giant monopolies, last longer than 20 years. Many get acquired, which invariably works out badly (an example being AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, which will probably result in CNN being sold).

The most common reason businesses fail is that, when faced with new competitive threats, they are unable to innovate because they have become habituated into repeating what made them successful in the past.

That is exactly how Google and Facebook succeeded. When they offered advertisers a more cost-effective option than just space on a page, or a time slot in a program, almost no newspaper or television company was able to respond with a new way of providing value for their advertising customers. They simply went into a tail spin.

The tech giants seem unassailable now; Google and Facebook are two of the most highly valued companies in the world. But no company is invulnerable, and what the social media giants are doing to their customers is, from a business perspective, extremely unusual.

They are no longer just offering users the opportunity to “stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them,” to quote Facebook’s ‘vision statement.’ They are telling them what they can, and cannot, say. They are even trying to shape what they think.

It seems a near certainty that well-capitalised business interests will be noticing this – and preparing to eat their lunch. That could significantly affect what at the moment is looking like a descent into an information dictatorship.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

DHS is paying Deranged Leftists to find a way to make you change your political beliefs

By Eric Striker | National Justice | February 19, 2021

Fresh off a summer of prolonged murder and arson organized by leftists, the Department of Homeland Security announced the lucky winners of its “domestic terrorism prevention” grant system last September.

One recipient program is at American University’s School of Communications, which got $568,613 from the DHS to partner with Google’s Jigsaw (an AI project that specializes in manipulating search results to achieve political ends) in order to “define and describe the growing threat of violent white supremacist extremist disinformation, evaluate attitudinal inoculation as a strategy for communication to combat the threat, and develop a suite of operational tools for use by practitioners and stakeholders.”

The highly subjective language of this description is only the tip of the iceberg. The project is being led by Kurt Braddock, a professor of Public Communications at AU. Braddock is known for pioneering social engineering and Soviet-style indoctrination techniques as a “vaccine” against what he arbitrarily deems to be “hate.”

Braddock’s leading role in this project, which seeks to develop his theories and put them into practice on a wide scale, is cause for concern. He doesn’t hide his fanatical left-wing prejudices, and he makes it a point to show his disregard for fundamental American values like free speech.

“Stochastic Terrorism”

Last month, Braddock penned a piece for Common Dreams declaring Donald Trump a “stochastic terrorist.”

The logic of the stochastic terrorism concept is that an individual engaging in lawful political advocacy should be found guilty of a crime if a person who he has no relationship to but shares his critique crosses the line and becomes violent. In other words, guilt by association.

In his article, he asserts that Trump should’ve been held responsible for the FBI agent instigated plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, merely for previously tweeting the slogan “LIBERATE MICHIGAN.”

To understand the absurdity of the idea, Dylann Roof told investigators that his main inspiration for the shooting spree at the Emanuel AME Church in South Carolina was reading interracial crime statistics, which the FBI itself compiles and releases every year. Under a system that prosecutes stochastic terrorism, the FBI itself would be partially responsible.

For Braddock, there is no such thing as the peaceful expression of beliefs or even raw data that challenges his worldview. Most enlightened people side with Socrates in the trial that found him guilty and put him to death for blasphemy, but the assistant professor upholds the Athenian court’s decision, “As a professor of communication, my teaching and research is based on a fact that has been clear since the days of Socrates– words have consequences,” he says.

In an interview with CBS News earlier this week, he reiterated this view, complaining that “far-right leaders” will be emboldened by Trump’s Senate acquittal into making statements that “motivate the far right” due to seeing a lack of “repercussions.”

The underlying first principle of all of Braddock’s work, seen in works like Weaponized Words which talks about using social psychology and manipulation to alter people’s political values, relies on the assertion that simply disagreeing with him on a broad range of issues is an act of violence.

Braddock’s Experiments Aren’t New

While Braddock may present his ideas and experiments as novel to DHS grant makers, they are in truth mostly taken from the established work of Chinese commissars in the 1970s and 80s.

In Michael Keane’s The Chinese Television Industry, he details the Maoist theory of culture and mass media. Journalists and state-backed intellectuals in China were instructed to become “guardians of the soul” tasked with instilling loyalty to the ruling elite’s interests as a way to “protect” the masses from the “viral infection” of so-called disinformation and counter-revolution.

The process of social engineering was referred to by Chinese officials as “positive education.” In Keane’s retelling, “positive education” was described as a way to “inoculate” the people against ideas critical of the state. Positive education methods were used until the 1980s.

In Braddock’s experiments, individuals are shown pro-white or populist arguments deliberately taken out-of-context in a way to induce a psychological response. The subjects are then rapidly bombarded with ideological “counter-arguments,” almost identical in method to what Maoists did on a wide scale in China.

Braddock claims these experiments have shown a high success rate in “inoculating” white people against anti-establishment ideas. Through his partnership with Google, he is trying to figure out ways to apply this on an industrial scale to social media, similar to how Mao attempted to solidify obedience to his doctrine through newspapers and television in China.

Petty Partisanship, Not Science

Braddock’s social media behavior reveals an individual deeply entrenched in the world of the online far-left.

In one tweet tagging Tom Cotton, he refers to him as a fascist “licking the boots of those who advocate white supremacy” over a June op-ed calling for government action against unabated anarchist violence.

In an older message from 2016, Braddock refers to Antifa members who tried to stab outnumbered Sacramento nationalists attending a permitted march as “counter-protesters.”

A cursory look at Braddock’s personal webpage is filled with Rick & Morty references and infantile writings that demonstrate a lack of professionalism, such as a self-description that reads “Terrorism is bad, so I try to understand, interpret, and stop it. Counter-terrorism is good, so I try to do work that helps it.”

It should be noted that the money behind this crusade was allocated to Braddock’s team by the Trump administration. At best, the grant is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. But the malice behind his thinking should not be underestimated. This small-souled man isn’t a blogger for the Huffington Post, he has the full deference of history’s most advanced surveillance state. If he gets his way, half of America could be classified as terrorists targeted for re-education. The consequences of this kind of designation is no laughing matter.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Satellite images reveal Israel quietly expanding secretive Dimona nuclear site

Press TV – February 19, 2021

Newly-released satellite images have revealed that the Israeli regime — the sole possessor of nuclear arms in the Middle East — is conducting “significant” constructive activities at the highly-secretive Dimona nuclear facility in the Negev Desert.

Citing commercial satellite imagery of the facility, the International Panel on Fissile Material (IPFM), a group of independent nuclear experts from 17 countries, reported  Thursday that “significant new construction” had been underway at the Dimona complex.

The construction site sits “in the immediate vicinity of the buildings that house the nuclear reactor and the reprocessing plant,” the report said.

The IPFM’s website said the construction had “expanded and appears to be actively underway with multiple construction vehicles present,” adding, however, that the purpose was not known.

It was unclear when the construction work began, but Pavel Podvig, a researcher with the program on science and global security at Princeton University, told The Guardian that the project had apparently been launched in late 2018 and 2019.

“But that’s all we can say at this point,” he added.

Israel has tightly withheld information about its nuclear weapons program, but the regime is estimated to be keeping at least 90 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, according to the non-profit organization Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

The warheads, FAS said, had been produced from plutonium obtained at the Dimona facility’s heavy water reactor.

Dimona, which is widely believed to be key to Israel’s nuclear arms manufacturing program, was built with covert assistance from the French government and activated sometime between 1962–1964, according to reports.

Israel has acknowledged the existence of the Dimona nuclear reactor, but neither confirms nor denies the purpose of the facility, which is assumed to be widely assumed to be the manufacturing of nukes.

Meanwhile, environmentalists have warned that Dimona — one of the world’s oldest nuclear facilities —could pose enormous environmental and security threats those living in the area and to the entire Middle East, calling on the regime to shut down the complex.

Turning a deaf ear to international calls for nuclear transparency, the regime has so far refused, with the US’s invariable support, to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | | 3 Comments

Israel prepares law to prohibit cooperation with ICC

MEMO | February 18, 2021

Israeli authorities are preparing a law that would prohibit any cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and would propose five years in prison for any violations of this law, RT reported yesterday.

Reporting Israeli TV Channel 7, RT said the law would also include a ban on handing over Israeli nationals to the ICC, financing the expenses of legal defence before it and imposing penalties on the court and those working for it.

This, it explained, comes as part of a series of measures taken by Israel against the ICC after its announcement that it would probe potential Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.

Channel 7 reported that the bill is being inspired by the American Civil Service Protection Act, which was enacted in Congress in 2002.

The US law, which was known as the Invasion of The Hague, gives the US president wide ranging powers to do anything in order to release any American citizen arrested by the ICC, including the use of force.

Reporting the Israeli NGO Shurat HaDin, Channel 7 said that the Israeli law aims to create a legal safety network for Israeli soldiers and senior officials who could be prosecuted.

It will also sanction the tribunal’s members, ban them from entering Israel and impose restrictions against foreign entities that help them.

The ICC’s declared intention to investigate possible war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories has enraged Israel. The government has apparently drafted a list of its officials and former officials who should avoid foreign travel as they may be arrested and charged with such crimes.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | 1 Comment

The Moral Bankruptcy of the Left on Foreign Policy

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 19, 2021

Two recent articles in the mainstream press reflect the moral bankruptcy of the left when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.

The first article is actually an editorial in the Washington Post. It is entitled Biden Continues Business as Usual with Trump’s “Favorite Dictator”. The editorial provides an excellent critique of U.S. foreign aid for Egypt, which is one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships. Pointing out that Biden had criticized former President Trump for supporting Egypt’s ruler, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, the Post’s editorial then proceeds to point out that that is precisely what President Biden is now doing:

On Tuesday, the State Department approved a $197 million sale of naval surface-to-air missiles to the Sissi regime. Spokesman Ned Price described the transfer as “a routine replenishment of defensive weapons.” In other words, if not a blank check, then business as usual with a government that pays for its U.S. weapons with $1.3 billion in annual U.S. aid — one of the largest subsidies to a foreign nation.

So, what does the Post recommend? Does it call for an end to all foreign aid or at least an end to foreign aid for brutal dictatorships or at least an end to foreign aid for Egypt’s brutal military dictatorship?

Unfortunately, no. Saying that Biden must connect his words favoring human rights and democracy to action, the Post writes: “A good first step would be to consult with the Egypt Human Rights Caucus on linking further military aid and sales to Egypt to the release of political prisoners….”

In other words, under what the Post considers to be a “good first step,” the U.S. would continue using U.S. taxpayer money to continue funding this brutal and tyrannical military dictatorship if Egypt would just release some political prisoners. By advocating this incremental “good first step,” the Post destroys the entire moral force of its editorial.

The second article is an op-ed in the Washington Examiner by a noted international leftist named Nuri Kinko. His article is entitled “Stop the Starvation of Syrian Children.” His article provides an excellent analysis of the horrific consequences of the U.S. government’s foreign policy of sanctions against Syria. Hoping that their sanctions will achieve regime change in Syria, U.S. officials have placed the Syrian populace on the verge of starvation.

So what does Nuri advocate? He says that the “U.S. and the European Union must adopt alternatives to comprehensive sanctions on Syria.”

What alternatives? He doesn’t say. Regardless, while Nuri can see the moral bankruptcy of sanctions, like other leftists (and like conservatives), he has a moral blind spot when it comes to foreign interventionism in general. In other words, he has no problem with the U.S. government taking interventionist actions against Syria; he just doesn’t want such actions to include sanctions.

There is only one moral position that can be taken with respect to foreign aid for Egypt and to sanctions on Syria: End all foreign interventionism, including foreign aid and economic sanctions. This is one of the areas where we libertarians have the moral high ground. We must continue to hold that ground and not succumb to immoral piecemeal compromises, as both liberals and conservatives do.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , | 3 Comments

The Covid Deception Serves An Undeclared Agenda

By Paul Craig Roberts | Institute for Political Economy | February 19, 2021

There is no scientific basis for the measures in place to deal with the alleged Covid Pandemic. Among experts the support for these measures are largely limited to those with financial links with pharmaceutical corporations. Public health bureaucrats, such as Fauci at NIH, are also linked with pharmaceutical corporations. Medical practioners take their guidance from approved authority, which means NIH, CDC, WHO, all compromised with conflicts of interest. Conforming with these compromised institutions provides liability protection that relying on independent expert advice does not.

One thousand five hundred experts from around the world have come together to challenge the Covid measures as “a global scientific fraud of unprecedented proportions.” Here is their statement: https://www.globalresearch.ca/international-alert-message-about-covid-19-united-health-professionals/5737680

Is it safe to assume that compromised public health bureaucries with links to pharmaceutical corporations know more and are more trustworthy than independent experts?

What is the real agenda behind the Covid Deception? Clearly it is not public health.

How was media orchestrated to deplatform and censor experts who challenge the obviously unsuccessful Covid measures? It should make you instantly suspicious when scientifically ignorant and totally compromised presstitutes dismiss dissenting independent experts as “conspiracy theorists.”

Why is no public discussion of the situation possible? If the Covid measures could stand examination, there would be no censorship.

Clearly, an undeclared agenda is being shoved down our throats.

In this article Dr. Pascal Sacre explains why the PCR test results in a huge exaggeration in the number of Covid infections and thus serves the assertion of a pandemic and the creation of fear that causes people to accept tyrannical measures: https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-19-rt-pcr-how-to-mislead-all-humanity-using-a-test-to-lock-down-society/5728483

That independent scientific experts have been forced out of public discussion should tell you how utterly corrupt are the governments of the world.

See also: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/02/18/the-covid-pandemic-is-the-result-of-public-health-authorities-blocking-effective-treatment/

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | 1 Comment

No decision on any NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan: Stoltenberg

Press TV – February 18, 2021

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says defense ministers from the Western military alliance made no decision at a recent meeting in Brussels on whether or when to pull out of war-torn Afghanistan.

“At this stage, we have made no final decision on the future of our presence,” Stoltenberg said after a video conference with allied defense ministers on Thursday.

The defense ministers met to discuss the possibility of staying in Afghanistan beyond the May withdrawal deadline agreed between the Taliban militant group and the United States under the administration of former US President Donald Trump.

Key on the agenda at the two-day virtual conference in Brussels was the future of the US-led forces in the war-torn country.

The NATO chief said US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin promised to consult with partners on the way forward.

“As the May 1 deadline is approaching, NATO allies will continue to closely consult and coordinate in the coming weeks. We are faced with many dilemmas, and there are no easy options,” Stoltenberg said.

“If we stay beyond the first of May, we risk more violence, more attacks against our own troops … But if we leave, then we will also risk that the gains that we have made are lost.”

The administration of President Joe Biden is reviewing whether to stick to the looming deadline to withdraw or risk a bloody backlash from the Taliban.

Other NATO members have signaled a desire within the alliance to stay in Afghanistan beyond the deadline. They are willing to remain in Afghanistan if Washington does so.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said on Wednesday that the Taliban must do more to meet the terms of a 2020 agreement with Washington on the withdrawal of US.forces to allow a pullout of the foreign troops.

“We can already say that we are not yet in a position to talk about the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan,” the German minister said as she arrived for the meeting.

“This also means a changed security situation, an increased threat for the international forces, also for our own forces. We have to prepare for this, and we will certainly discuss this.”

Nearly two decades after the US-led invasion, Trump struck a deal with the Taliban in the Qatari capital of Doha early last year.

The former White House tenant reached the accord in February 2020, under which the US and its NATO allies are expected to withdraw all troops in 14 months in exchange for the Taliban to halt attacks on foreign forces.

President Biden, however, has said his administration would not commit to a full withdrawal by May.

The United Nations says more than 100,000 civilians have been killed or injured over the past decade across Afghanistan.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Biden’s Interventionism Meets Russia-China Multilateralism

By Salman Rafi Sheikh – New Eastern Outlook – 18.02.2021

In his first major foreign policy speech, the newly elected US president made it clear that the era of US’ traditional interventionist and confrontationist policy is going to take over Donald Trump’s “America First”, a controversial policy that emphasized economic nationalism and a reduced US involvement in conflicts. In his last speech as president, Trump took a lot of pride in the fact that he is the first president in last many decades who completed his tenure without starting a new war. Biden’s approach, however, shows that US interventionism and the bid to re-establish US supremacy are going to be the new cornerstones of US global politics. Anti-China and anti-Russia elements within the US establishment see Trump’s “America First” as one primary reason that allowed US rivals to take advantage of US political retreat and project themselves in many crucial regions including the Middle East and Europe, which were under US exclusive influence until a few years ago. Therefore, the foremost goal of the Joe Biden administration is going to be reclaiming the lost US supremacy. As it stands, the new administration is already projecting this policy without mincing any words, calling it a ‘great reset.’

Biden’s speech was unambiguous when he addressed Russia, saying,

“I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens — are over. We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people. And we will be more effective in dealing with Russia when we work in coalition and coordination with other like-minded partners.”

Outlining his confrontation with China, Biden said,

“And we’ll also take on directly the challenges posed by our prosperity, security, and democratic values by our most serious competitor, China. We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.

Of course, these “warnings” are a part of Biden’s policy to re-build American supremacy. As he said,

“It’s going to take time to rebuild what has been so badly damaged. But that’s precisely what we’re going to do.”

The Joe Biden administration, as it stands, is being facilitated by the presence of hawks in the broader US-led defense establishment including NATO. A recent paper written by an anonymous author for the NATO-funded think-tankThe Atlantic Council, said that “The single most important challenge facing the United States and the democratic world in the twenty-first century is the rise of an increasingly authoritarian and aggressive China under Xi Jinping.” What the US needs to do is, the author argues, compel China’s “ruling elites to conclude that it is in China’s best interests to continue operating within the US-led liberal international order rather than building a rival order, and that it is in the Chinese Communist Party’s best interests to not attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.

This policy stands in complete contrast to what China’s Xi had only recently said in his World Economic Forum speech. To quote him, “To build small circles or start a new Cold War, to reject, threaten or intimidate others, to willfully impose decoupling, supply disruptions or sanctions, and to create isolation or estrangement will only push the world into division and even confrontation,” Xi stressed, adding that, “We cannot tackle common challenges in a divided world, and confrontation will lead us to a dead end.”

Russia’s Putin in his address to the same forum outlined an identical approach, signifying how a de-facto Russia-China alliance exists with a primary aim to counter US unilateralism and supremacy.

Putin clearly foresaw Biden’s approach when he said, “We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres. Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force.

Pre-empting Biden’s aggressive drive towards US unilateralism, Putin pointed out, “… the era linked with attempts to build a centralised and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilisation’s cultural and historical diversity.

While the win-win and multipolar vision given by Russia-China shows their resolve to resist US unilateralism and build a more inclusive global political system, it also underscores the fact that the centre of global political and economic gravity has significantly shifted to Asia. An increasing number of countries are subscribing to the logic of win-win, rejecting the zero-sum competition that hawks in the US espouse, cherish and aim to impose on the whole world.

A “war of narratives”, with win-win and zero-sum competition as its two faces, has therefore begun with full force.

And, in this war, the US is not just resisting China and Russia; it is primarily resisting its own inevitable downfall both internally and externally. The events leading to the virtual occupation of the US Congress by Trump’s supporters signifies how the US democracy, internally divided and deeply polarized between the so-called liberals and white supremacists, is no longer a “role model” for the rest of the world. On the external front, China and Russia signify how a US led global economic system is not the only path to global salvation.

Salman Rafi Sheikh is a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs.

February 19, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , | 1 Comment