Aletho News


100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced: Official Government data


An investigation of data found in the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has revealed that extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines several times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.

But what’s perhaps more concerning is that the “deadly” lots were distributed widely across the United States whilst other “benign” lots were sent to just a few locations.

The data used in the investigation was pulled from the publicly accessible VAERS database which can be viewed here. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a United States programme for vaccine safety, co-managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The programme collects information via reports made by doctors, nurses, and patients about adverse events (possible harmful side effects) that occur after administration of vaccines to ascertain whether the risk–benefit ratio is high enough to justify continued use of any particular vaccine.

The reports pulled from the database were ones that had been submitted up to October 15th 2021 and they included all adverse reactions reported against the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections, as well as all adverse reactions reported against the influenza vaccines; which were used to generate a control dataset .

The VAERS database showed a total of 1,608 adverse event reports against the flu vaccines alongside 15 deaths and 73 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 494.

The ‘lot number’ is a specific string of numbers and letters that tracks a specific batch of vaccine from production and into a persons arm and it is usually found on a vaccine label or accompanying packaging.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the influenza vaccines sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event.

Except for a few spikes the number of adverse events per lot number was generally the same, with no more than 26 reports being made against a single lot number of influenza vaccine.

The above charts shows the count of lots by number of reports of adverse reactions per lot for the influenza vaccines. It shows that 33% of the lots (165 / 494) only had a single adverse reaction report made against them, whilst just 0.6% of the lots (3 / 494) had at least 20 adverse reaction reports made against them.

The above chart shows how many times a specific lot number was identified in an adverse reaction report of which the person had died following vaccination against the Flu. Ninety-seven-percent of the lots (480 / 494) were associated with zero deaths, whilst 13 lots were associated with a single death and 1 lot was associated with 2 deaths.

The above chart shows the number of states within the USA a specific log number of the influenza vaccine was distributed to.

The VAERS data shows that 44% of the lots (219 / 494) were sent to just a single state within the USA, whilst a further 17% (86 / 494) were sent to 2 states, 10% (50 / 494) were sent to 3 states, 5% (24 / 494) were sent to 4 states, 3% (17 / 494) were sent to 5 states, 2% (11 / 494) were sent to 6 states, and just 0.4 (2 / 494) were sent to 12 states within the USA.

All of the above data was then used as a control dataset to compare against VAERS data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.

The VAERS database showed a total of 171,463 adverse event reports against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,828 deaths and 14,262 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 4,522.

This data alone shows that there have been 106 times as many adverse reactions, 189 times as many deaths, and 195 times as many hospitalisations due to the Pfizer Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event. We do not have reliable information about standard lot size, but news articles indicate an average lot size of 1000 vials (approx. 6000 doses).

The highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the influenza vaccine was 26. Which makes it all the more shocking to discover that the highest number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine up to October 15th 2021 was 3,563, and this isn’t an anomaly.

Thousands of adverse event reports have been made against a single lot number of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine numerous times, and unfortunately the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine hasn’t fared any better.

The VAERS database showed a total of 188,998 adverse event reports against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine alongside 2,603 deaths and 10,225 hospitalisations. The total count of lot numbers returned was 5,510.

This data alone shows that there have been 118 times as many adverse reactions, 174 times as many deaths, and 140 times as many hospitalisations due to the Moderna Covid-19 jab than there have been due to all other influenza vaccines combined.

The above chart shows the number of adverse event reports made to VAERS against the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine sorted by the lot number of vaccine that was administered prior to the adverse event, and it shows that the Moderna jab fared even worse than the Pfizer jab in this department with the highest number of adverse event reports against a single lot number of Moderna Covid-19 vaccine totalling a staggering 4,967.

The above chart shows the count of lots against the range of adverse events reported per lot of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine. The data reveals that 2,908 lots (64%) had just a single adverse event report made against them, whilst 2 specific lots had over 3000 adverse event reports made against them.

Shockingly we can also see from the data that 30 lots of Pfizer vaccine had between 1,000 and 1,499 adverse event reports per lot, another 20 lots had between 1,500 and 1,999 adverse event reports per lot, and another 23 lots had between 2,000 and 2,499 adverse event reports per lot.

This suggests that there were a small quantity of dangerous batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine and a large quantity of seemingly harmless (at least in the short term) batches of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.

But the investigation of VAERS data also revealed that reported deaths due to the Pfizer vaccine were again only associated with certain batches of the jab. The chart above shows that 96% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,828 reported deaths were associated with just 4% of the lots of Pfizer vaccine.

Five lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each, a further 5 lot numbers were associated with 81-100 deaths each, and just 2 separate lot numbers were associated with over 100 deaths each.

The same can be seen for the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. Ninety-five-percent of the lots of Moderna vaccine had zero death reports made against them. Meaning the 2,603 deaths were associated with just 5% of the lots of Moderna vaccine.

Thirteen lot numbers were associated with 41-60 deaths each, 2 lot numbers were associated with 61-80 deaths each and 1 lot number was associated with 81-100 deaths.

The investigation of VAERS data also found that specific batches of the pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines which were distributed to between 13 and 50 states across the USA had an unusually high number of adverse event reports and deaths compared to lots that were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA

As you can see from the above table 4,289 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to 12 states or less across the USA, recording 9,141 adverse event reports against them alongside 99 deaths and 657 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 2 adverse event reports per lot and 0 deaths and hospitalisations.

However, a further 130 different lots of Pfizer vaccine were distributed to between 13-50 states across the USA, recording 166,170 adverse event reports, 2,799 deaths, and 14,155 hospitalisations. This equates to an average of 1,278 adverse event reports per lot number, alongside 22 deaths and 109 hospitalisations.

This data therefore shows that each lot from the 130 different lot numbers of Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine distributed to more than 13 states, harmed on average 639 times more people, hospitalised on average 109 times more people, and killed on average 22 times more people.

The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘EK9231’; causing over 3,500 adverse event reports.

The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Pfizer vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘EN6201’ causing almost 120 deaths.

The above chart on the left shows the number of adverse event reports against the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13 or more states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm in the USA. The most harmful of which is lot number ‘039K20A’; causing over 4,000 adverse event reports.

The second most harmful batch of Moderna vaccine was assigned lot number ‘041L20A’, and media reports show that it was actually recalled by the Orange County Healthcare Agency in January 2021 following reports of allergic reactions.

The above chart on the left shows the number of deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Moderna vaccine by lot number sent to 13+ states across the USA. This chart has identified the actual lot numbers of Moderna vaccine that have caused the most deaths in the USA. The deadliest of which is lot number ‘039K20A’ causing almost 100 deaths.


This investigation of VAERS data reveals several concerning findings which warrant further investigation, but it also leads to questions of why authorities within the USA which are supposed to monitor the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines have not discovered this themselves.

The data clearly shows that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign has been significantly more harmful and deadly than the influenza vaccination campaign. This fact alone begs the question as to how the FDA advisory committee could possibly vote Seventeen to Zero in favour of approving the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5 to 11.

One voting member of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee admitted that it will not be fully known whether Pfizer’s vaccine is safe for 5 to 11-year-old children, until it begins being administered.

Dr Eric Rubin of Harvard University said – “We’re never going to learn how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it, and that’s just the way it goes”.

But the investigation of VAERS has also identified the specific batches of Pfizer and Moderna vaccine that have caused the most harm across the USA, which leads to other extremely serious questions requiring urgent answers.

Why is it that certain batches of the vaccine have proven to be more harmful than others?

Why is it that certain batches of Covid-19 vaccine have proven to be deadlier than others?

Why is it that the most harmful and deadly Covid-19 vaccines were distributed across the entire USA, whilst the least harmful and deadly were only ever distributed to a few states? Was this done on purpose?

Could this just be a quality control issue?

Pfizer whistleblower from a Kansas manufacturing facility did after all reveal that “People are being made to sign off on things that normally they wouldn’t, and then they wonder why their own employees won’t take it”.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

The vaccine’s toll on men’s sexual health

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | November 1, 2021

OUR drugs watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), have sent out the most extraordinary press release ten months into the Covid-19 vaccination campaign. They have decided it is now prudent to use social media to encourage those who have suffered serious or life-changing adverse events to report them to the MHRA’s Yellow Card scheme.

The scheme has been such a well-kept secret since the beginning of the vaccination rollout that many GPs and hospital doctors have never heard of it and virtually none of the public knows what it is. Hospital staff who want to report an adverse reaction (ADR) often find the site blocked from hospital computers. According to an NHS managerial source, who wishes to remain anonymous: ‘We have clinical colleagues who have sent videos showing that the Yellow Card website is BLOCKED from within some hospital sites . . . deliberately so that they cannot report.’

Meanwhile, the press release’s headline is clear. It says: ‘Every report counts: support the Yellow Card scheme by reporting suspected side effects.

‘People who suspect they have may have [sic] experienced a side effect from a medicine or vaccine are being encouraged to report it as part of the global #MedSafetyWeek campaign from 1-7 November 2021.

‘The social media campaign calls upon healthcare professionals, national immunisations programme staff, as well as patients, their carers and families, to report suspected side effects.

‘Healthcare professionals prescribing, dispensing or administering medicines or vaccines are encouraged to discuss side effects with their patients and to be vigilant for new or rare suspected side effects.’

The campaign is backed by healthcare regulators in 60 countries.

Yellow Card is a self-reporting system which informs the MHRA whether something is amiss with a new drug. It is funded largely by Big Pharma and has been accused of allowing the fox to guard the hen house, or to use another metaphor, to mark its own homework. Ministers often dismiss the reports as coincidental because little or no investigation is done into them. The site does not show the age of the person involved or the timeframe of reactions, so it is impossible to know whether the reaction was noticed within 12, 24, 48 hours or one to two weeks after vaccination.

These omissions in data collection mean that basic conclusions about safety cannot be drawn. We know from VAERS, the American system, that most deaths occur within 48 hours of vaccination, which should be a huge red flag. Those details are not available in the weekly summaries the MHRA produce. Therefore, the public and healthcare workers cannot rely on the system to reveal the real incidents of mortality and morbidity.

Earlier this year, this is how the MHRA responded to an inquiry as to the number of vaccine reports they received: ‘We estimate that 10 per cent of all drug reactions are reported to the Yellow Card.’

Asked how they evaluated the few reports they did receive, they said: ‘We apply statistical techniques that can tell us if we are seeing more events than we would expect to see, based on what is known about background rates of illness in the absence of vaccination. This aims to account for factors such as coincidental illness. We also look at the clinical characteristics to see if new patterns of illness are emerging that could indicate a new safety concern.’

It took a Freedom of Information request to discover that reported death rates in the UK per million doses are approximately 28 times higher for Covid-19 vaccines than for influenza vaccines. This does not support MHRA statements that the number of suspected adverse drug reactions is not unusual for an immunisation programme of this scale.

When the injured report an ADR such as the autoimmune disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome, when the immune system damages nerves causing weakness and sometimes paralysis, or vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) characterised by blood clots and low platelets, they receive an acknowledgement but not much else. None of the seven we spoke to who reported injuries after being injected with Oxford/AstraZeneca’s batch PV46671 has had any meaningful follow up.

One of the seven, BBC food broadcaster Jules Serkin, 63, from Canterbury, reported her serious adverse reaction in May, two months after receiving the AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine. Since the jab, she’s had constant headaches, tested positive for blood clots, and had problems with her eyesight and pains in her legs and sinuses. Her symptoms have worsened over time and no help has been offered to her or to her GP by either the MHRA or AZ. She said: ‘I have not heard back from the MHRA. My doctor submitted a report to AstraZeneca in September but we have heard nothing since.

‘I’m bouncing from pillar to post trying to find help.’

It is vital that the MHRA see as many reports as possible to get a realistic overview.

Men’s sexual and reproductive data is particularly under-reported, even by the alternative media.

In September, Trinidadian-born singer Nicki Minaj tried to raise awareness and was ridiculed for a Twitter post that her 2million followers sent viral. It said her cousin’s friend was jilted at the altar by his fiancée because the Covid-19 vaccine had made his testicles swell. #BallGate turned into quite a drama with the White House inviting Nicki to a meeting aimed at neutralising her views and to ‘talk to one of our many doctors to answer questions about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines’. Meanwhile, the MHRA have quietly been receiving reports of swollen testicles plus erection and ejaculation disorders.

Their data also show other disturbing reports affecting men’s sexual health.

MHRA Yellow Card reporting up to October 20 (published October 28, 2021)

Out of the 49.6million people injected the average rate of overall reporting rate for all vaccines combined is 1-in-131 people impacted.

Total fatalities – 1,738; Pfizer – 576, AstraZeneca – 1,111, Moderna – 20, Unspecified – 31

Men’s sexual/reproductive health specific data

Infections including epididymitis (swelling in one or both testicles), orchitis (inflammation of the testes) and prostate (gland located between penis and bladder)

• Pfizer = 13

• AZ = 13

• Moderna = 2

Penis injury or contusion (blood builds up under the skin and penis may become swollen and badly bruised)

• Pfizer = 1

• AZ = 4

Neoplasms (excessive tissue growth) including prostate, male breast, penile and testicular cancers

• Pfizer = 4

• AZ = 12

Erection and ejaculation disorders

• Pfizer = 78

• AZ = 135

• Moderna = 19

Penile, scrotal and prostate disorders

• Pfizer = 61

• AZ = 88

•  Moderna = 9

Sperm and testicular disorders

• Pfizer = 72

• AZ = 180

• Moderna = 16

Gynaecomastia (swelling in men’s breasts)

• Pfizer = 3

• AZ = 9

The last word should go to Mick Foy, Head of Pharmacovigilance Strategy at the MHRA, who says: ‘The most important part of our work is making sure the vaccines and medicines you and your family take are effective and acceptably safe. This campaign comes at a crucial time when millions of people in the UK are vaccinated against COVID-19 but is equally applicable to all vaccines and medicines.

‘Yellow Card scheme reports play a key role in helping the MHRA monitor the safe use of all medicines and vaccines to protect public health through effective regulation.’

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

CDC’s Committee Member Dr. Chen Should Be Removed Immediately Due to Conflict of Interest

By Toby Roger Ph.D. | The Defender | November 1, 2021

Dr. Wilbur H. Chen wants you to know that he’s very upset (see comment’s section)!

He’s upset the peasants have access to email!

He’s upset the peasants have access to common sense and reason!

He’s upset the peasants actually read scientific studies for themselves!

And he’s very upset that the peasants are speaking to him without his express written permission!

Apparently, he’s also clairvoyant (like Santa) because he knows what you are writing before you even send it to him, so he has set up an auto-reply on his email account to let you know he’s very important, he gets lots of emails and he does not like “misinformation.”

Chen defines “misinformation” as anything that contradicts the Pharma narrative. Chen is adamant that nothing be allowed to pierce his protective Pharma information bubble.

I’m reminded of the phrase, “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”

What Chen is actually mad about is that he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

A search of the government website Open Payments reveals Chen accepted $437,250.70 from Emergent BioSolutions and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in 2020.

GSK is one of the four largest vaccine makers in the world. GSK makes the incredibly toxic Hep B vaccine (Engerix-B), the troubled HPV vaccine (Cervarix), a meningococcal vaccine that is loaded with aluminum (Bexsero) and various flu vaccines among others.

GSK is also working on a COVID-19 vaccine that is now in Phase 3 clinical trials.

All of GSK’s products must go before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), that Chen sits on, in order to be approved.

Emergent BioSolutions is a contract manufacturer that makes vaccines for others including the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine that has been linked to blood clots and a bleeding disorder.

Emergent BioSolutions has an abysmal safety record. Even though federal regulators are generally like Mr. Magoo when it comes to spotting safety problems, the issues at Emergent’s plant in Baltimore were so egregious that earlier this year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down the plant and ordered J&J to take it over and run it themselves.

The FDA also ordered 75 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines manufactured at that plant be destroyed because of contamination. All of the vaccines manufactured at the Emergent BioSolutions plant must first be approved by the ACIP where Chen is a member.

This is completely unacceptable. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 27,550 pediatricians employed in the U.S. There is absolutely no reason for the ACIP to utilize a person with such extensive financial conflicts of interest.

The CDC must be above reproach in order to have any credibility with the general public. Sadly the CDC appears to do whatever it can get away with — a classic example of the fox guarding the henhouse.

The fact that these decisions involve the health of our children makes corruption all the more appalling.

Please contact the following four officials (as well your elected representatives) to let them know that you are troubled by Chen’s extensive financial conflicts of interest and please ask that he be removed from the ACIP before it meets on Tuesday, Nov. 2.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Roybal Building 21, Rm 12000

1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333

phone: (404) 639-7000

Xavier Becerra

Secretary, Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201

c/o Sean McCluskie

Captain Amanda Cohn

Chief medical officer

National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333 MS C-09

phone: (404) 639-6039

fax: (404) 315-4679

Grace Lee, M.D.

Chair, Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices

Center for Academic Medicine

Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Mail Code: 5660

453 Quarry Road, Stanford, CA 94304

phone: (650) 497-0618

phone: (650) 498-6227

fax: (650) 725-8040

It is beyond alarming that the ACIP has failed to properly monitor financial conflicts of interest amongst its members. All prior ACIP votes involving Chen should be reviewed by an independent outside review board to see if they must be thrown out because of this blatant corruption.

The CDC should also examine and release publicly all financial conflict of interest statements from all remaining ACIP members to determine if there are additional problems before Tuesday.

© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

One woman’s stand against the outrageous power grab in Australia

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | November 1, 2021

UNREPORTED by the MSM was an impassioned speech by an MP in the Victorian Parliament against legislation being pushed through to confer unlimited Covid powers on the State Premier, the egomaniac Dan Andrews, and the Health Minister. 

The MP is Steph Ryan, and she is an example to all MPs in threatened democracies worldwide. She is also the deputy leader of the National Party of Australia, known as the Nationals. She certainly deserves wider notice and recognition not just for the stand she is taking but for the quality of her speech. I am grateful to the despairing Australian reader who brought her to my attention:

‘We’re in trouble in this country,’ she wrote to me, ‘From being a free, relaxed and happy nation (after all, one of the stock-standard phrases used when expressing universal optimism was always “She’ll be right, mate!”) we’re now a fearful, cowering, woke country expecting cradle to grave coddling and direction.’

Steph Ryan’s speech is a lifeline for citizens like our reader. I found it truly inspiring. Setting out the very principles upon which democracy and our freedom are based, it is everything that we want and need to hear said by a politician. You can watch it below and the full transcript follows.

Steph Ryan: I feel sick that we are having this debate. I do not think there has ever been a piece of legislation come before this chamber that I have been more vehemently opposed to. I feel sick that Labor MPs are not brave enough to stand up and speak the truth about this legislation. I do not care if you think that the Premier’s handling of this pandemic has been infallible. I do not care if you stand with Dan. I do not care if you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The truth is that this legislation is about handing the Premier and the Minister for Health the ability to rule by decree. Is that power that you want to hand to every future Premier and health minister? It does not matter what you think about the Premier. This is not even about the current government. This is about the management of pandemics but also the ability to trigger these powers for ever into the future. It is about the regime that it has the potential to set up here in this state. That is what is at stake here. Is that what we want as Victorians?

This Bill allows the government to declare a pandemic in Victoria and make orders that lock down the state even when there is no presence of disease here. Yes, the chief health officer needs to publish his or her advice within 14 days of those orders being made, but that advice, even if it contradicts the order made by the Premier or the health minister, does not invalidate those orders if it does not support them.

The Bill gives the government the right to make orders on the ability of attributes – things like race, gender, sexuality. How on earth can people support that? How on earth can members opposite support that? It is extraordinary. It offers no rights of appeal to courts for people who are incarcerated. It sets up a penalty regime of fines that would see an individual face more than $90,000 [c £50,000]. That would send most ordinary Victorians to jail. Who can afford a $90,000 fine? The government says, ‘Don’t worry. That’s just about the worst breaches.’ Well, that is not what the legislation says. It is extraordinary. I cannot believe that those opposite are not brave enough to stand up and speak out about it. I imagine that the member for Altona is going to speak on this legislation. She has been the Attorney-General; she has been a lawyer. She cannot possibly agree with this; she cannot. Where are your values?

There is no Parliamentary oversight of these powers. The Bill sets up a consultative committee of people appointed by the Premier and the health minister, and they do not even need to take the advice of that – it is just a consultative committee. Central to a liberal democracy is a belief in shared power, and central to a liberal democracy is a suspicion of concentrated power. Central to a liberal democracy is the accountability of the executive to the Parliament. Central to a liberal democracy is the preservation of the following rights: freedom to criticise the government, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of worship, the right to a fair trial, the right of assembly, freedom of movement. This Bill hands the government the power to throw out every one of those rights by decree, and there is no oversight of these powers. We are supposed to think critically in this place. We are supposed to come here, representing our constituents, thinking critically. That is why people elected us. Stop being sheep!

I find it inconceivable that a future Premier, for example, might determine that people with red hair cannot hold a job. I find that completely out of the realm of possibility. But do you know what? Two years ago I never contemplated that we would live in a world where someone who is not vaccinated cannot hold a job, cannot go into a shop, cannot go to an event. I never believed that we would come to a place as a state where we would see that – but here we are. These things do not happen overnight; they happen by degrees. Do I trust the Andrews government and all future governments to exercise these powers responsibly? No, I do not, and I think anyone who does is an absolute fool.

Labor MPs protest that this is what we asked for, that we called for elected politicians to be accountable for these decisions. What we called for was proper Parliamentary oversight, and that is why we have proposed that the power to make orders should require the approval of a constitutional majority of both houses of the Parliament.

When the president of the Victorian Bar Council comes out and says that the Stasi would be happy with the powers that this Bill confers, people need to sit up and take note. This is how he summarised it yesterday:

‘The Bill confers on the health minister in a practical sense an effectively unlimited power to rule the state by decree, for effectively an indefinite period, and without . . . judicial or parliamentary oversight . . . That doesn’t add up to good democracy.’

People might argue that ultimate accountability sits with the people at an election. If you do not like what a Premier has done, well, vote them out. But yesterday when we had the Bill briefing, the department could not say whether this Bill gives the power to the Premier to suspend elections. They did not know the answer to that, and they said they would have to come back and give us advice, which we still have not received. That remains unanswered.

The department does not know whether the Premier could use this Bill to suspend an election. Do you realise how extraordinary that is?

The Irish philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.’ Those opposite tell us that unprecedented powers are required for unprecedented times. Governments always present compelling reasons to concentrate power. My grandmother came to this country fleeing Mussolini, and I am glad that she is not alive today to see what is happening. I genuinely am. I think she would be absolutely horrified. I honestly never believed that the people elected to this chamber would think that it is appropriate to hand the Premier and the health minister the kind of power to lock people up, to lock people down and to cancel protests without the checks and balances of Parliament – to strip people of their most basic rights without the oversight and the checks and balances of Parliament. The erosion of people’s liberties does not happen overnight; it happens by degrees. Streamline pandemic laws, by all means. We do not argue with that. We know that the government needs a certain degree of flexibility to control dangerous outbreaks of disease. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing for proper accountability and oversight. This Bill does not deliver those measures.

Let me conclude with the proverb that we all know because it is inscribed into the foyer of this building:

Where no Counsel is the People Fall; but in the Multitude of Counsellors there is Safety.

That is the principle of this Parliament, and it is the principle that I urge members of the Labor Party to adhere to. Do not give this unchecked power not just to this government but to future governments. It is wrong.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Video | , , , | 2 Comments

Useless Green Energy Hitting The Wall

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | October 13, 2021

In the field of litigation settlements, people sometimes talk about a “win, win” scenario — a settlement structure where both sides can get some advantage and simultaneously claim victory. By that criterion, what is “green” energy (aka intermittent wind and solar power)? The public pays hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to get the things built, and in return it gets: sudden shortages and soaring prices for coal, oil, gas and electricity; and dramatically reduced reliability of the electrical grid, leading to periodic blackouts and risks of many more of same; and despite it all fossil fuel use doesn’t go down. It’s a “lose, lose, lose.”

As the world comes out of the pandemic and the international economy returns to attempting to fulfill normal consumer demand, you can see green energy hitting the wall pretty much everywhere you look. It’s just a question of which data points you want to collect for a day’s entertainment.

The current energy crisis in Europe and Asia is of course getting next to no coverage in the U.S. media. But over at Bloomberg News they have a big story on October 4. That’s Bloomberg News as in Mike Bloomberg — the man with four private jets and at least ten houses who devotes his public life to hectoring you to cut your “carbon footprint.” But now suddenly the Bloomberg News people seem to have figured out that periodic energy crises are an inevitable consequence of increasing reliance on the undependable wind and sun. The headline of the article is “Global Energy Crisis Is the First of Many in the Green Power Era.” The Bloomberg piece itself is behind paywall, but extensive excerpts can be found at Climate Depot, where they call it a “moment of clarity”:

The next several decades could see more periods of energy-driven inflation, fuel shortages and lost economic growth as electricity supplies are left vulnerable to shocks.. . . . The world is living through the first major energy crisis of the clean-power transition. It won’t be the last. . . . Wind and solar power production have soared in the last decade. But both renewable sources are notoriously fickle — available at some times and not at others. And electricity, unlike gas or coal, is difficult to store in meaningful quantities. That’s a problem, because on the electrical grid, supply and demand must be constantly, perfectly balanced. Throw that balance out of whack, and blackouts result.

No kidding.

Meanwhile, the latest place to get hit with blackouts due to an unreliable grid is China. (Previous rounds of blackouts traceable to over-reliance on unreliable wind and/or solar power have hit South Australia in 2016, California in 2020, and Texas in February this year.). From the New York Times, September 27:

Power cuts and even blackouts have slowed or closed factories across China in recent days, adding a new threat to the country’s slowing economy and potentially further snarling global supply chains ahead of the busy Christmas shopping season in the West. The outages have rippled across most of eastern China, where the bulk of the population lives and works.

But didn’t the same New York Times just tell us on October 8 that China is “the world leader” in both solar power and wind power? Somehow, neither of those seems to help when electricity demand suddenly ramps up. Just yesterday the Guardian reported that the recent power chaos is causing China to re-emphasize what they call “energy security,” which the Guardian takes to mean fossil fuels, particularly coal:

China plans to build more coal-fired power plants and has hinted that it will rethink its timetable to slash emissions. . . . In a statement after a meeting of Beijing’s National Energy Commission, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, stressed the importance of regular energy supply, after swathes of the country were plunged into darkness by rolling blackouts that hit factories and homes. While China has published plans to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030, the statement hinted that the energy crisis had led the Communist party to rethink the timing of this ambition, with a new “phased timetable and roadmap for peaking carbon emissions”. . . . “Energy security should be the premise on which a modern energy system is built and and the capacity for energy self-supply should be enhanced,” the statement said.

Over in the UK, somebody has now finally taken the time to do a calculation of how much it would cost to provide sufficient battery storage to get the country through an extended (ten day) period of dark and calm in the winter, assuming a grid relying 100% on wind and solar generation. The calculation has been made by Professors Peter Edwards and Peter Dobson of Oxford University, and Gari Owen of Annwvyn Solutions, on behalf of Net Zero Watch, which is a project of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the board of the American affiliate of this organization.). The answer that Edwards, Dobson and Owen come up with is approximately 3 trillion British pounds. For comparison, UK GDP in 2020 was just under 2 trillion British pounds. And if you look at the Edwards/Dobson/Owen calculation, you will realize that they assume zero loss of energy on the round trip into and out of the batteries. That’s rather a favorable assumption, given that in practice an all-wind-and-solar system would need to store power all the way from the summer to the winter. What percentage of your cell phone’s battery charge is left if you leave the device unplugged on the shelf for six months? But then, it’s all fantasy anyway, so what does it matter?

And finally, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency has just (October 6) come out with its annual International Energy Outlook. This is the sage projection of our wisest gurus of how the production and consumption of energy will change over the three decades from now until 2050. Surely then these guys will show us how the world will achieve the true path to Net Zero carbon emissions within that time frame, if not much sooner.

OK, then, here is the key chart:

Wait a minute! Could they really be saying that, rather than being on a path to oblivion, all major fossil fuel categories (petroleum, natural gas and coal) will continue to see increased usage right on through 2050, and with no indication that any decline will have begun even then? Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. Indeed the projected increases in consumption of two of those fuels are quite dramatic — up in the range of 50% for natural gas and 40% for petroleum. Yes, so-called “renewables” are projected to increase dramatically; but after thirty years of this, they will still, according to EIA, provide only about 25% of “primary energy consumption,” which is less than petroleum alone, and barely a third of the combined contribution of petroleum, natural gas and coal.

But don’t worry, prices for gasoline and electricity will increase by a multiple, and we’ll have regular blackouts.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

I’m A Twenty Year Truck Driver, I Will Tell You Why America’s “Shipping Crisis” Will Not End

By Ryan Johnson | October 27, 2021

I have a simple question for every ‘expert’ who thinks they understand the root causes of the shipping crisis:

Why is there only one crane for every 50–100 trucks at every port in America?

No ‘expert’ will answer this question.

I’m a Class A truck driver with experience in nearly every aspect of freight. My experience in the trucking industry of 20 years tells me that nothing is going to change in the shipping industry.

Let’s start with understanding some things about ports. Outside of dedicated port trucking companies, most trucking companies won’t touch shipping containers. There is a reason for that.

Think of going to the port as going to WalMart on Black Friday, but imagine only ONE cashier for thousands of customers. Think about the lines. Except at a port, there are at least THREE lines to get a container in or out. The first line is the ‘in’ gate, where hundreds of trucks daily have to pass through 5–10 available gates. The second line is waiting to pick up your container. The third line is for waiting to get out. For each of these lines the wait time is a minimum of an hour, and I’ve waited up to 8 hours in the first line just to get into the port. Some ports are worse than others, but excessive wait times are not uncommon. It’s a rare day when a driver gets in and out in under two hours. By ‘rare day’, I mean maybe a handful of times a year. Ports don’t even begin to have enough workers to keep the ports fluid, and it doesn’t matter where you are, coastal or inland port, union or non-union port, it’s the same everywhere.

Furthermore, I’m fortunate enough to be a Teamster — a union driver — an employee paid by the hour. Most port drivers are ‘independent contractors’, leased onto a carrier who is paying them by the load. Whether their load takes two hours, fourteen hours, or three days to complete, they get paid the same, and they have to pay 90% of their truck operating expenses (the carrier might pay the other 10%, but usually less.) The rates paid to non-union drivers for shipping container transport are usually extremely low. In a majority of cases, these drivers don’t come close to my union wages. They pay for all their own repairs and fuel, and all truck related expenses. I honestly don’t understand how many of them can even afford to show up for work. There’s no guarantee of ANY wage (not even minimum wage), and in many cases, these drivers make far below minimum wage. In some cases they work 70 hour weeks and still end up owing money to their carrier.

So when the coastal ports started getting clogged up last spring due to the impacts of COVID on business everywhere, drivers started refusing to show up. Congestion got so bad that instead of being able to do three loads a day, they could only do one. They took a 2/3 pay cut and most of these drivers were working 12 hours a day or more. While carriers were charging increased pandemic shipping rates, none of those rate increases went to the driver wages. Many drivers simply quit. However, while the pickup rate for containers severely decreased, they were still being offloaded from the boats. And it’s only gotten worse.

Earlier this summer, both BNSF and Union Pacific Railways shut down their container yards in the Chicago area for a week for inbound containers. These are some of the busiest ports in the country. They had miles upon miles of stack (container) trains waiting to get in to be unloaded. According to BNSF, containers were sitting in the port 1/3 longer than usual, and they simply ran out of space to put them until some of the ones already on the ground had been picked up. Though they did reopen the area ports, they are still over capacity. Stack trains are still sitting loaded, all over the country, waiting to get into a port to unload. And they have to be unloaded, there is a finite number of railcars. Equipment shortages are a large part of this problem.

One of these critical shortages is the container chassis.

A container chassis is the trailer the container sits on. Cranes will load these in port. Chassis are typically container company provided, as trucking companies generally don’t have their own chassis units. They are essential for container trucking. While there are some privately owned chassis, there aren’t enough of those to begin to address the backlog of containers today, and now drivers are sitting around for hours, sometimes days, waiting for chassis.

The impact of the container crisis is now hitting residences in proximity to trucking companies. Containers are being pulled out of the port and dropped anywhere the drivers can find because the trucking company lots are full. Ports are desperate to get containers out so they can unload the new containers coming in by boat. When this happens there is no plan to deliver this freight yet, they are literally just making room for the next ship at the port. This won’t last long, as this just compounds the shortage of chassis. Ports will eventually find themselves unable to move containers out of the port until sitting containers are delivered, emptied, returned, or taken to a storage lot (either loaded or empty) and taken off the chassis there so the chassis can be put back into use. The priority is not delivery, the priority is just to clear the port enough to unload the next boat.

What happens when a container does get to a warehouse?

A large portion of international containers must be hand unloaded because the products are not on pallets. It takes a working crew a considerable amount of time to do this, and warehouse work is usually low wage. A lot of it is actually only temp staffed. Many full time warehouse workers got laid off when the pandemic started, and didn’t come back. So warehouses, like everybody else, are chronically short staffed.

When the port trucker gets to the warehouse, they have to wait for a door (you’ve probably seen warehouse buildings with a bank of roll-up doors for trucks on one side of the building.) The warehouses are behind schedule, sometimes by weeks. After maybe a 2 hour wait, the driver gets a door and drops the container — but now often has to pick up an empty, and goes back to the port to wait in line all over again to drop off the empty.

At the warehouse, the delivered freight is unloaded, and it is usually separated and bound to pallets, then shipped out in much smaller quantities to final destination. A container that had a couple dozen pallets of goods on it will go out on multiple trailers to multiple different destinations a few pallets at a time.

From personal experience, what used to take me 20–30 minutes to pick up at a warehouse can now take three to four hours. This slowdown is warehouse management related: very few warehouses are open 24 hours, and even if they are, many are so short staffed it doesn’t make much difference, they are so far behind schedule. It means that as a freight driver, I cannot pick up as much freight in a day as I used to, and since I can’t get as much freight on my truck, the whole supply chain is backed up. Freight simply isn’t moving.

It’s important to understand what the cost implications are for consumers with this lack of supply in the supply chain. It’s pure supply and demand economics. Consider volume shipping customers who primarily use ‘general freight’, which is the lowest cost shipping and typically travels in a ‘space available’ fashion. They have usually been able to get their freight moved from origination to delivery within two weeks. Think about how you get your packages from Amazon. Even without paying for Prime, you usually get your stuff in a week. The majority of freight travels at this low cost, ‘no guarantee of delivery date’ way, and for the most part it’s been fine for both shippers and consumers. Those days are coming to an end.

People who want their deliveries in a reasonable time are going to have to start paying premium rates. There will be levels of priority, and each increase in rate premium essentially jumps that freight ahead of all the freight with lower or no premium rates. Unless the lack of shipping infrastructure is resolved, things will back up in a cascading effect to the point where if your products are going general freight, you might wait a month or two for delivery. It’s already starting. If you use truck shipping in any way, you’ve no doubt started to see the delays. Think about what’s going to happen to holiday season shipping.

What is going to compel the shippers and carriers to invest in the needed infrastructure? The owners of these companies can theoretically not change anything and their business will still be at full capacity because of the backlog of containers. The backlog of containers doesn’t hurt them. It hurts anyone paying shipping costs — that is, manufacturers selling products and consumers buying products. But it doesn’t hurt the owners of the transportation business — in fact the laws of supply and demand mean that they are actually going to make more money through higher rates, without changing a thing. They don’t have to improve or add infrastructure (because it’s costly), and they don’t have to pay their workers more (warehouse workers, crane operators, truckers).

The ‘experts’ want to say we can do things like open the ports 24/7, and this problem will be over in a couple weeks. They are blowing smoke, and they know it. Getting a container out of the port, as slow and aggravating as it is, is really the easy part, if you can find a truck and chassis to haul it. But every truck driver in America can’t operate 24/7, even if the government suspends Hours Of Service Regulations (federal regulations determining how many hours a week we can work/drive), we still need to sleep sometime. There are also restrictions on which trucks can go into a port. They have to be approved, have RFID tags, port registered, and the drivers have to have at least a TWIC card (Transportation Worker Identification Credential from the federal Transportation Security Administration). Some ports have additional requirements. As I have already said, most trucking companies won’t touch shipping containers with a 100 foot pole. What we have is a system with a limited amount of trucks and qualified drivers, many of whom are already working 14 hours a day (legally, the maximum they can), and now the supposed fix is to have them work 24 hours a day, every day, and not stop until the backlog is cleared. It’s not going to happen. It is not physically possible. There is no “cavalry” coming. No trucking companies are going to pay to register their trucks to haul containers for something that is supposedly so “short term,” because these same companies can get higher rate loads outside the ports. There is no extra capacity to be had, and it makes NO difference anyway, because If you can’t get a container unloaded at a warehouse, having drivers work 24/7/365 solves nothing.

What it will truly take to fix this problem is to run EVERYTHING 24/7: ports (both coastal and domestic),trucks, and warehouses. We need tens of thousands more chassis, and a much greater capacity in trucking.

Before the pandemic, through the pandemic, and really for the whole history of the freight industry at all levels, owners make their money by having low labor costs — that is, low wages and bare minimum staffing. Many supply chain workers are paid minimum wages, no benefits, and there’s a high rate of turnover because the physical conditions can be brutal (there aren’t even bathrooms for truckers waiting hours at ports because the port owners won’t pay for them. The truckers aren’t port employees and port owners are only legally required to pay for bathroom facilities for their employees. This is a nationwide problem). For the whole supply chain to function efficiently every point has to be working at an equal capacity. Any point that fails bottlenecks the whole system. Right now, it’s ALL failing spectacularly TOGETHER, but fixing one piece won’t do anything. It ALL needs to be fixed, and at the same time.

How do you convince truckers to work when their pay isn’t guaranteed, even to the point where they lose money?

Nobody is compelling the transportation industries to make the needed changes to their infrastructure. There are no laws compelling them to hire the needed workers, or pay them a living wage, or improve working conditions. And nobody is compelling them to buy more container chassis units, more cranes, or more storage space. This is for an industry that literally every business in the world is reliant on in some way or another.

My prediction is that nothing is going to change and the shipping crisis is only going to get worse. Nobody in the supply chain wants to pay to solve the problem. They literally just won’t pay to solve the problem. At the point we are at now, things are so backed up that the backups THEMSELVES are causing container companies, ports, warehouses, and trucking companies to charge massive rate increases for doing literally NOTHING. Container companies have already decreased the maximum allowable times before containers have to be back to the port, and if the congestion is so bad that you can’t get the container back into the port when it is due, the container company can charge massive late fees. The ports themselves will start charging massive storage fees for not getting containers out on time — storage charges alone can run into thousands of dollars a day. Warehouses can charge massive premiums for their services, and so can trucking companies. Chronic understaffing has led to this problem, but it is allowing these same companies to charge ten times more for regular services. Since they’re not paying the workers any more than they did last year or five years ago, the whole industry sits back and cashes in on the mess it created. In fact, the more things are backed up, the more every point of the supply chain cashes in. There is literally NO incentive to change, even if it means consumers have to do holiday shopping in July and pay triple for shipping.

This is the new normal. All brought to you by the ‘experts’ running our supply chains.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Economics | | 3 Comments

Internet Trolls Face Jail For Causing “Psychological Harm!”

By Richie Allen | November 1, 2021

The Times is reporting this morning that trolls could be sentenced to two years imprisonment for sending messages or posting content that causes psychological harm.

Writing in this morning’s paper, Home Affairs Editor Matt Dathan said:

Ministers will overhaul communication laws by creating new offences in the forthcoming Online Safety Bill, the flagship legislation to combat abuse and hatred on the internet.

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport has accepted recommendations from the Law Commission for crimes to be based on “likely psychological harm”.

The proposed law change will shift the focus on to the “harmful effect” of a message rather than if it contains “indecent” or “grossly offensive” content, which is the present basis for assessing its criminality.

A new offence of “threatening communications” will target messages and social media posts that contain threats of serious harm. It would be an offence where somebody intends a victim to fear the threat will be carried out.

A “knowingly false communication” offence will be created that will criminalise those who send or post a message they know to be false with the intention to cause “emotional, psychological, or physical harm to the likely audience”. Government sources gave the example of antivaxers spreading false information that they know to be untrue.

The new offences will include so-called “pile-ons” where a number of individuals join others in sending harassing messages to a victim on social media.

I have been warning Richie Allen Show listeners for several years now, that this was coming. Long before the advent of covid-19, I predicted that people would eventually be prosecuted and even imprisoned for expressing their opinions.

You might well ask, how could the state prove that someone “knowingly” sent an anti-vaccine communication? In a fair and just world it would be next to impossible to prove that the accused antivaxxer didn’t believe what he/she was saying. But these are not fair and just times. It’s open tyranny now.

You might think that all any defendant would need do is march into court with the latest Yellow Card reports. UK citizens who believe that they have had an adverse reaction to a jab can report it on the government website. It’s known as the Yellow Card scheme.

Again, in a righteous world, that would be the end of it. But there’s nothing righteous about our world right now.

The Online Harms Bill was dreamt up to destroy the independent media. Three years ago, I was approached by academics from Salford University and an old friend who still works for the BBC.

They told me that they were coming for the independent/alternative media and that The Richie Allen Show was top of the list in the UK. You’ll remember me telling you that at the time.

Three years ago, The Department for Culture, Media and Sport held hearings about online harms and misinformation, to gather the facts before publishing the Online Harms white paper. As the producer of the country’s most popular independent news show, I peppered them with emails, asking to be allowed to provide a statement to the hearing about what it is that I (and others) do and why we do it. I never received a reply.

Throughout the scamdemic, I have platformed academics from long established universities and colleges, men and women who have challenged lockdown, the claims about covid and of course, the vaccines.

Every one of those guests earned the right to express their opinions in a public forum. But that just won’t do. If your agenda is to regularly inject everyone on the planet with mRNA and DNA jabs, you must first rid yourself of any opposition. It’s happening now.

I said it already, it’s open tyranny. Your government is proposing to lock up its citizens for expressing opinions based on their own personal experiences or what they have read elsewhere, often in official documents.

Some day soon, it’ll be an offence to question vaccine safety and a crime to declare that you do not believe the global warming narrative on the basis that expressing such thoughts causes real harm to others.

I can hardly believe that this is happening. But it is.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 8 Comments

Climate change fueled witch hunts… Then and now

By Gregory Wrightstone | CO2 Coalition | October 29, 2021

European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted witches that were  thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to  declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age. A belief that evil humans  were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the  “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to  the the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling  the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?

The first extensive European witch hunts coincided with plunging temperatures as the continent transitioned away from the beneficial warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1250 AD). Increasing cold that began in the 13th century ushered in nearly five centuries of advancing mountain glaciers and prolonged periods of rainy or cool weather. This time of naturally-driven climate change was accompanied by crop failure, hunger, rising prices, epidemics and mass depopulation.

Large systematic witch hunts began in the 1430s and were advanced later in the century by an Alsatian Dominican friar and papal Inquisitor named Heinrich Kramer. At Kramer’s urging, Pope Innocence VIII issued an encyclical enshrining the persecution and eradication of weather-changing witches through this papal edict. The worst of the Inquisition’s abuses and later systemic witch hunts were, in part, empowered by this decree.

This initial period of cooler temperatures and failing crops continued through the first couple of decades of the 16th century, when a slight warming was accompanied by improvements in harvests. Clearly, the pogrom against the weather-changing witches had been successful!

Unfortunately for the people of the Late Middle Ages, the forty years or so of slight warming gave ground to a more severe bout of cooling. The summer of 1560 brought a return of coldness and wetness that led to severe decline in harvest, crop failure and increases in infant mortality and epidemics. Bear in mind that this was an agrarian subsistence culture, nearly totally dependent on the yearly harvest to survive. One bad harvest could be tolerated, but back-to-back failures would cause horrific consequences, and indeed they did.

Of course, the people’s misfortunes were attributed to weather-changing witches who had triggered the death-dealing weather, most often in the form of cold, rain, frost and devastating hailstorms. Horrific atrocities were alleged of the witches, including Franconian witches who “confessed” to flying through the air to spread an ointment made of children’s fat in order to cause a killing frost. Across the continent of Europe, from the 15th to the 17th centuries there were likely many tens of thousands of supposed witches burnt at the stake, many of these old women living without husbands on the margins of society.

The worst of the witch hunts occurred during the bitter cold from 1560 to about 1680. The frenzy of killing culminated in the killing of 63 witches in the German territory of Wiesensteig in the year 1563 alone. Across Europe, though, the numbers of witches continued to increase and peaked at more than 500 per year in the mid-1600s. Most were burned at the stake; others were hung.

The end of the witch hunts and killings tie closely to the beginning of our current warming trend at the close of the 17th century. That warming trend started more than 300 years ago and continues in fits and starts to this day.

In the Late Middle Ages, a large segment of the population actually believed that evil people could negatively affect the climate. It appears that we haven’t learned the lessons of the 16th century and the dangers of stirring unfounded fears concerning changes to our climate. Perhaps in the not too distant future we will have the benefit of hindsight and realize that people like Al Gore and Dr. Michael Mann were the Heinrich Kramers of the early 21st century, trying to convince us all that we can control the uncontrollable — the natural cycles of the Sun and Earth that are operating today, just as they have for many millions of years.

Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist and the Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition in Arlington Virginia. He is bestselling author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know


Pfister (2007) Witch Hunts: Strategies of European Societies in Coping with Exogenous Shocks in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries

Behringer (1999) Climatic change and witch-hunting: the impact of the Little Ice Age on mentalities.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Still No Accountability From Israel Over the 1956 Massacre of Kafr Qasem

By Ramona Wadi | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 31, 2021

On the 65th anniversary of Israel’s brutal massacre on the village of Kafr Qasem, where 48 Palestinians were gunned down by border police, the colonial entity has still failed to formally acknowledge its responsibility for the killings. A bill presented at the Knesset by Arab Israeli MKs was once again voted down. The bill would have required educational instruction in Israeli schools about the massacre, as well as the publication of any classified documents.

The Kafr Qasem massacre is an example of Israel’s premeditated ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. On the same day it attacked the Suez Canal, along with its French and British allies, a curfew was placed on eight Palestinian villages and communicated late, to ensure that Palestinians travelling back home from work would be out after the time restriction. The massacre is one example of Israel’s ongoing Nakba, and one that targeted Palestinians in Israel. Through re-enactment of terror reminiscent of the Nakba, Israel was aiming at further Palestinian dispossession.

It was only 25 days after the massacre that the international community became knowledgeable of the killings, through a press release by Tawfik Toubi, which explained the gruesome massacres in detail. “In some cases, the police stomped on the heads of the dead and sunk their bayonets in the bodies of the women,” an excerpt from the press release included in Samia Halaby’s book, Drawing the Kafr Qasem Massacres, reads.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog attended this year’s memorial. His presence was an example of Israel’s hypocrisy when it comes to Palestinian history as a result of colonial violence. Asking for “forgiveness”, Herzog stated, “For it is clear to all of us: the killing and injury of innocents are absolutely forbidden. They must remain beyond all political arguments!”

But Israel has never made the distinction of the innocent. All Palestinians are a target, since each Palestinian stands in the way of Israel’s colonial expansion. In the case of Kafr Qasem, however, Israel is not averse to making a distinction between this massacre and other previous bouts of ethnic cleansing. Why should Palestinians “forgive” Israel for the Kafr Qasem massacres when the colonial enterprise is failing to institutionalise its culpability? Furthermore, why ask forgiveness for Kafr Qasem and not for the earlier massacres which paved the way for Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing?

Herzog’s words attempted to steer clear of what he called “political argument”. At the commemoration, he declared, “This is our opportunity, as a human society, to empower what we have in common as citizens and as neighbours.”

There is no equality between what Herzog calls citizens and neighbours without decolonisation. The Israeli president spoke from a privileged position to Palestinians who have lost family members, knowing that the perpetrators faced only a charade of justice. The convicted officials responsible for the murders were released from prison by 1960, by means of reduced sentences or pardons, meaning that the Israeli justice system failed to recognise the severity of the crime and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

Speaking about the massacres politically as well as in terms of criminal culpability is necessary to ensure that the Palestinian narrative emerges. It is well documented that Israel’s existence is rooted in massacres and Palestinians’ dispossession.

With Kafr Qasem, as well as with other massacres, Israel needs to set the record straight – it is a perpetrator, with intent, and with an entire political structure that has supported its ethnic cleansing for decades. There should be no dissociating from political accountability merely to ensure that Palestinian memory remains distinct from the history which Zionist colonisation perpetrated since the Nakba.

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

MacArthur’s Plot for War with China

Tales of the American Empire | October 28, 2021

One myth found in history books is that the United States was surprised by Chinese intervention in the Korean war. This was no surprise because China warned that it would intervene if American forces moved north of the 38th parallel. War with China was sought by General Douglas MacArthur who wanted an excuse to overthrow its new communist government. He assumed that American airpower could demolish Chinese armies while Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces landed from Taiwan and marched to Beijing. However, the Chinese army proved far better than expected in Korea and stymied MacArthur’s secret plan. American President Harry Truman ended this plot by firing General MacArthur.


“Nationalist Chinese forces invade mainland China”;; November 19, 2009;…

Related Tale: “American Marines Reclaimed Northern China in 1945”;…

Related Tale: “The United States Started the Korean War”;…

“United States Army in the Korean War”; James F. Schnabel; U.S. Army Center of Military History; 1992;

November 1, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | 2 Comments