Aletho News


The case for compulsory vaccinations is dead… Omicron just killed it.

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | December 2, 2021

Yesterday, Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, held a press conference where she talked at length about her “concerns” over the EU’s low vaccination rate, and how best to “fix” it.

When asked about making vaccines mandatory, she said:

It is understandable and appropriate to lead this discussion now – how we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union. This needs discussion, this needs a common approach, but I think it’s a discussion that has to be led.”


Two or three years ago, I would have never thought to witness what we see right now, that we have this horrible pandemic, we have the life-saving vaccines but they are not being used adequately everywhere. And thus this is an enormous health cost,”

Of course, the idea that the EU nations are going to “debate” mandatory vaccinations is a joke, they are more likely to enforce them no matter what.

But any real, rational debate was over as soon as the EU and the vaccine manufacturers both admitted that the vaccines do not work.

By any pre-2021 definition, the Covid “vaccines” are not actually vaccines. From the beginning, it has been widely admitted that they don’t stop you getting the disease, and they don’t stop you spreading it.

Every day we hear about some famous person or other testing positive “despite being vaccinated”.

The EU has already hinted that their vaccination passes (which, ironically enough, they appear to have been planning for “two or three years” despite von der Leyen claiming they never saw the pandemic coming), will expire in nine months.

Why will they expire?

Because the “protection” allegedly conferred by the vaccine wears off.

How fast does it wear off?

They have no idea.

The alleged emergence of the Omicron variant makes the situation even worse, from the establishment point of view. Indeed, it could be argued the first real casualty of the Omicron outbreak was narrative cohesion.

Experts are already warning that the Omicron variant may be resistant to the vaccines, and the CEO of Moderna added his voice to this chorus yesterday, saying:

I think it’s going to be a material drop [in vaccine effectiveness]. I just don’t know how much because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to…are like ‘this is not going to be good’.”

Even if these warnings prove incorrect, and the mainstream suddenly backtracks and starts reporting that the vaccines work “better than expected” to combat Omicron, that’s irrelevant.

They have just admitted that the “vaccines” could stop working the moment there is a new mutation. And viruses mutate a lot.

So, they know the vaccine’s don’t work very well, they know they will wear off, and they know any new mutations could stop them working completely.

The only thing they don’t know is what the long term side effects of the vaccines are, a fact admitted by Pfizer themselves in their supply contracts:

the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known

Now, here’s the all-purpose disclaimer: This is not admitting that Covid19 is dangerous, the pandemic real or in any other way endorsing the narrative. Rather, and this is important, it’s pointing out that even on their own terms the establishment’s plan for compulsory vaccination does not make any sense at all.

The current narrative is that:

  • The vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission.
  • What beneficial effect they do have wears off, they don’t know when.
  • They probably don’t protect against new variants or mutations.
  • The vaccines have unknown longterm side effects.

These are not fringe ideas or baseless theories, they are the self-contradictory supposed “facts” of the schizophrenic covid story.

Going entirely by the mainstream’s own words, and completely on their own terms, any possible case for mandatory vaccinations is dead.

The “Omicron variant” killed it, even if it never killed anything else.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 4 Comments

Scenarios in Response to the New War Against Humanity

By Doug E. Steil | December 2, 2021

In light of recent developments in the western world it has become abundantly evident to most informed observers that a war against the general population has been launched under the guise of counteracting a viral pandemic. Through a process of coordinated incrementalism governmental efforts have focused on implementing a totalitarian population control system rather than appropriately targeting public health problems associated with a limited viral outbreak.

A key mechanism in this control process has involved coercive means to inject as many people as possible with an experimental gene therapy concoction with proven toxicity, in some cases deadly, which however has been ineffective in its claimed suppression of viral infection and transmission to others. The established term “vaccination” was misappropriated to mislead the public into believing that getting these shots would lead to salvation by protecting themselves and others around them. These toxic doses were authorized for emergency use a year ago based on various fraudulent misrepresentations, which included relying on false test results, suppressing viable treatment protocols, such as those published by physician Dr. Peter McCullough, rigging trial designs and aborting prematurely, and manipulating statistical interpretations in a manner that created the impression they were effective when they were not. Though their producers acknowledged unforeseen effects they demanded contractual indemnification against bad outcomes. The failure to properly inform the public about the facts surrounding these substances, including known and potential adverse effects, in conjunction with the aggressively coercive measures to compel millions of people to submit to receiving them into their bodies, constitutes crimes against humanity in accordance with the Nuremberg Code, established in 1947.

At least technically, thus far getting these toxic injections was voluntary, but a substantial portion of the public saw through the scam or were reservedly skeptical, for which they have been publicly vilified in a vicious defamation campaign propagated by the mass media, operating in concert with the pharmaceutical industry and governments. Only a few days ago – November 19 in Austria and November 30 in Germany – a critical red line was crossed through announcements by public officials, of impending requirements for everybody, including kids, to get these toxic injections, purportedly against a virus from Wuhan that has long since mutated. Today Angela Merkel expressed her endorsement of such measures, though she will no longer be in power to vote for them. The mantra has been simply that this was necessary – indeed “the only solution” – in order to increase the overall so-called “vaccination rate” in the population, as if though that could somehow solve ongoing health problems. Since there is no substantive evidence for these sensationalistic claims, it equates to pure political demagoguery. Yet, contrary to this transparently false claim, mandatory injections, possibly on a repetitive basis, would only exacerbate the current situation purportedly occurring in emergency rooms or intensive care units at hospitals because the shots do not provide any remedy but cause harm instead, in some cases almost immediately, in many cases cumulatively. Essentially, this highly controversial mandate amounts to a subversive extermination campaign in the long run, deriving from likely cases of infertility and decreased life expectancy. In order to deflect from their previous lies, officials have chosen to raise the stakes an thus declared war against humanity.

Such an egregious attack as this is unprecedented in recent memory, so it may be difficult for many to understand what is occurring, right in front of their eyes. There may be a prevailing inclination toward cognitive dissonance, but it is preferable to assess various means to counteract such ominous developments within the full scope of possible scenarios that may arise. Below are five situations, beginning with the most obvious. Subsequent response scenarios represent an escalatory progression. Though they are not equally likely to occur and may be less specific to some regions, such results cannot be ruled out entirely when considering the volatile social conditions that are caused by governments that have intentionally gone rogue. In the pursuit of conquest, they have split and destabilized society, a recurring modus operandi when regarded in a historical context, back to Philip II of Macedon and Julius Caesar – divide et impera.

Legal Challenges

The stated rationales for implementing compulsory injections of toxic substances, euphemistically referred to as “mass vaccination”, cannot be legally justified under any circumstances under existing protections, therefore the arguments presented to the public are all based on provably false premises or wishful thinking. They have been repeated so often, that many have already internalized them to be functionally true. At their core have been false promises of immunity, appeals to social solidarity, moral self-righteousness, and an unproven notion of easing the potential demand for medical services. If only everybody had volunteered to get the shots, the claim goes, the outbreak would have been eradicated; therefore mandatory injections are the only solution. None of this is true; on the contrary the data show that case hospitalization rates increase in correlation with the proportion of administered injections. Yet even if it were true, there are basic legal protections in place worldwide that forbid such mandates.

Many people understand this as self-evident and therefore expect the legal process to work, as it should, in theory. They may regard the announcements as typical hot air from politicians as a tactical means of leveraging their authority to exert additional pressure on those people who had not made up their minds yet about this vital question and presume the judicial reviews will enforce a reversal. Though this would be a reasonable expectation if the facts and the law were followed, the problem is that the legal process has become hopelessly corrupted. Reiner Füllmich, one of the founders of the Corona Investigative Committee, which has broadcast the 80 weekly sessions it has held thus far, has repeatedly confirmed that the German legal system has been so thoroughly corrupted, that bringing forth such matters before a system with an Anglo-American legal tradition makes more sense. Contemporary judicial rulings in Germany can be so out of touch with reality that it is difficult to imagine that decisions in prior totalitarian regimes could have possibly been any worse. Even so, it is still necessary to formally proceed through this avenue in order to be able to justify taking additional steps if it should turn out that cynical expectations of an inherently corrupted system are confirmed. There is also the possibility that the time it takes to submit to the judicial review process will result in the matter becoming moot, so that the stated premises for the mandates no longer obtain and are formally withdrawn.

The sheer suddenness and public lying that accompanied these announcements, which were completely contrary to repeated promises made by these same politicians who then proclaimed there was no alternative, shows they deserve no trust. They will say and do whatever they feel will defer the truth from emerging and in the meantime protect themselves from embarrassment. Once they have gone so far as to thrown aside basic principles – having in effect become criminals of the worst kind – one can no longer expect to reverse themselves in response to appeals to decency.

Passive Resistance

This is an effective path that many skeptics and opponents of totalitarian edicts have already chosen. Examples of this have been the numerous work stopages among US airline pilots, or hospital staff quitting their jobs. In the Italian port cities of Trieste and Genoa dock workers have gone on extended strikes in response to onerous governmental impositions still falling short of universal mandates to submit to toxic injections.

During the most recent session of the Corona Investigative Committee four specialists working in Austria, of which three are physicians, presented responses to the Austrian announcement of future mandates a week earlier, which was followed by large demonstrations in Vienna on the next day, which were said to have involved the participation of more than a hundred thousand protesters. The fourth guest , an attorney, started a political party that immediately received sufficient acclaim to be represented in the provincial government of Upper Austria. He stressed the importance of mass resistance and announced liaison efforts with various unions in addition to forming new union representation.

Mass strikes and roadblocks associated with the yellow vest movement in France have shown how determined efforts by a coordinated group of dedicated individuals can force the government to back down under persistent pressure. For people who understand why they have adamantly refused to be injected with a toxic substance for the sake of a failing mass experiment the imposition of a mandate would be regarded as an existential issue. Sane people do not risk the threat of premature death, severe sickness or disability for the sake of satisfying the power egos of corrupted political puppets and greedy profiteers.

Big demonstrations have recently taken place in numerous cities in the Netherlands, France, Britain, Australia, Croatia, Warsaw, and many other locations. Even during the cold winter months hundreds of thousands of protesters will go out onto the streets to show their strength.

Active Rebellion

On July 20, 1944, as part of Operation Valkyrie, Claus Von Stauffenberg participated in a plot to kill Adolf Hitler and other leading cohorts by means of a suitcase bomb placed in a conference room. The bombing killed a stenographer instantly but the coup failed because the intended targets survived. After the follow-up arrests nearly five thousand individuals, including Von Stauffenberg were executed. That particular assassination attempt continues to be commemorated in contemporary times on the date of the anniversary. Von Stauffenberg is glorified in the German media as a hero even though he was a German nationalist and purportedly expected to replace Hitler with another authoritarian government, though ruled instead by aristocrats like himself. Moreover, his co-plotters had earlier helped Hitler come to power and shared many of the same policy goals. In other words, the disagreement they had with the government was about methodology and style, along with certain details, rather than wanting to transform society along a new democratic course of redemption. In other words, had their coup attempt been successful, there was likely to be far less ideological change than occurred as a consequence of the coup against John F Kennedy nearly six decades ago in Dallas, in which Lyndon B Johnson was a plotter and beneficiary. From a judicial perspective, it is said, the German government had not blatantly broken any existing laws. In any case, an implicit question that the German media do not appear to have answered in this context is: from what specific time onward in the history of that regime would it have been legitimate, without possessing any benefit of foresight, for Von Stauffenberg to have participated in multiple assassinations, and how many additional functionaries would they likely have executed subsequently?

It is relevant to bear in mind such conjecture because the fourth part in Article 20 of Germany’s Basic Law contains an essential element that explicitly states that all Germans have a right to resistance against anyone who proceeds to eliminate the specific democratic and social order enumerated in the prior three sentences, if other remedies are not possible. The first twenty articles have a special status; they cannot be revoked. What was openly suggested by the next chancellor and successor to Merkel, Olaf Scholz from the Social Democratic Party, was a significant milestone in German post-war history because this unprecedented proposal, which was universally acknowledged by everyone to be unconstitutional and unworkable, would constitute a blatant violation of Article 2, guaranteeing bodily integrity, in case it were ever to be imposed upon the population. This explains why nobody has ever gone this far, to step over the red line. They were previously reluctant to do so, but now they are playing with fire. If legal challenges to this usurpation of the most basic human principles are thwarted under some imaginary and invalid pretext, the circumstances premised in Article 20 will legally enable and authorize Germans to resist against all those who brought about the transgression. It should be noted that exercising such resistance does not – and logically cannot – rule out the use of force.

Understandably there is little legal precedence for how the right to resistance may play out, except for abiding by the general principle of proportionality, which itself is somewhat vague in the context of potentially existential measures being threatened against a substantial portion of the population. It is known that there are clandestine groups who are armed because they have been anticipating a potential situation like this, just as in the United States millions of Americans bear firearms to protect against potential tyranny pursuant to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. One can imagine that the imposition of an illegal law that would essentially force virtually the entire population to get toxic injections, against their will, so that their life span will be shortened, will simply not be accepted by many. Official jurists may claim now that they are not threatening to forcibly inject dissenters, this is just a “cute” technicality, and there is no way to know if that claim will be revoked a few weeks or months later, as the totalitarian escalation continues. Though utilizing violence as a means of exercising the right to resist, as distinct from self defense, is not rooted in jurisprudence, its use is fueled instead by image ideation in the media as well as historical narratives. This can lower the threshold level for some individuals to criminally act out their rage. Only a few weeks ago, in late September, a person not wearing a face mask got triggered at a gas station by being told to wear one, based on a valid ordinance. This made him so angry that he came back with a gun and killed the employee, a student who was working there part-time. While some may act out their resentment impulsively, others might choose to express their resistance selectively. If a top-level politician were to be targeted in a violent way, this would surely provoke a disproportionate and unwelcome response.

An episode in German history highlights how easily and quickly things can get out of control. On November 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan, then a 17-year old Jew, assassinated the German diplomat Ernst Vom Rath at the German embassy in Paris, through five shots into the abdomen, on behalf of persecuted Jewry, as he claimed immediately thereafter. Grynszpan was living in Paris illegally as a stateless person and had gained access to the embassy by falsely claiming that he had valuable secret information that he wanted to share with a top official. That was the event that triggered the Kristallnacht in various cities in Germany two days later.

An important prerequisite for introducing and enhancing totalitarianism is to manufacture and cultivate a scapegoat group that is to be reviled by the general population. Over the past few months German media have been denouncing all those who refuse to get toxic shots as somehow being primarily responsible for the fact that hospitals are having to deal with patients complaining of respiratory problems, most of whom, if they are below seventy years old, have a weakened immune system due to overweight or obesity issues. A common media ploy to reinforce this fabricated hatred is to have reporters go around town with camera and microphone and film ordinary people on the street giving their opinion about these awful “unvaccinated” people. The negative attitudes will then be selected to be shown on television, providing a feedback loop to convey that such opinions are perfectly legitimate. The next phase in this perception management scheme then entails presenting the public with skewed opinion poll results, based on undisclosed methodology, which embolden legislators to invoke public support for unpopular and inherently illegitimate measures.

A necessary premise for maintaining democracy is for the population to be properly informed, not brainwashed with lies and hate, so they can make valid decisions based on facts. Yet democracy is in the process of being subverted. Two of Germany’s top weekly publications with a daily online presence, Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, based in Hamburg, have both received generous direct funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to their web site. Not surprisingly, these publications have been among the more vicious disseminators of lies and vituperations against conscientious dissidents. German politicians in conjunction with the media have thus already prepared the stage for future expressions of street violence by disgruntled individuals and may themselves become caught up in such activity due to their undermining of law and democracy. For instance, as in the United States, especially as occurred during riots in the summer of 2020, it is not uncommon for one political group to stage a peaceful public demonstration. An opposing group, virtually always self-proclaimed “leftists”, nowadays including hoodlums with an affinity toward Antifa, will announce a counter-demonstration with the goal of preventing the first group to exercise their right to march along a predetermined route. Police and journalists often get caught up in the violence perpetrated by the second group of counter-demonstrators, for which the first group then gets blamed. Such activity on the streets is representative of an unfortunate societal breakdown on a larger scale. This development is exactly what enemies of Germany, such as the Green Party, which has been characterized by distinctive totalitarian flavors since its inception in 1980, would relish to spread. Its activists seek to capitalize on such situations to attain increasingly tighter control. It will be interesting to see how exercising the right to resistance will play out next year.

Paramilitary Rejection

In a few cases a ruling elite exercising power through government can become so corrupt and disliked that the military temporarily takes over and becomes welcomed for their intercession by a substantial portion of the population. The best example of this practice is Thailand, where perennial military takeovers have a different manifestation than in African or Latin American nations. In many smaller European countries the military has taken on a more subdued role since the likelihood of fighting defensive wars to defend their own territory has decreased. This may be one explanation for a recent trend toward female defense ministers who lack military experience. Yet this should not mean they should feel or become irrelevant. They can assert themselves in special emergency situations such as natural weather catastrophes but also as a necessary back-up of police force activity. They are also particularly well equipped to secure borders to neighboring countries and airports, as well as their national radio and television broadcasting facilities, just in case a corrupt government were to become carried away with excessively abusing power to the detriment of a large segment of the population. This readiness for such contingencies may be because its leadership and soldiers have taken an oath that they tend to take more seriously than career politicians do.

A few hours after it was announced that the Austrian government would aim to implement a general requirement for experimental gene therapy through toxic shots, and a call by a leading opposition politician for large demonstrations against such plans the following day in the center of Vienna, there was an interesting report from The Free Thought Project under the following headline:

Austrian Police, Army Reportedly Refusing to Enforce ‘Health Dictatorship’, Will March in Protest Against It

The following is excerpted from the news story:

“The police and the army refuse to control the health pass in the name of ‘freedom and human dignity.’ They will join a large demonstration against compulsory confinement on November 20, 2021 in Vienna” […]

“Austrian Armed Forces Union (FGÖ) President Manfred Haidinger followed suit and joined in a letter published on 14 November. He intends to “defend fundamental rights and freedoms”. The FGÖ specifies that “everyone” is authorized to demonstrate, even in the event of confinement! The obligation of control imposed by the Minister of the Interior, Karl Nehammer has already been rejected by the police union. In addition, the Union of Austrian Armed Forces announces that they will participate in this great gathering in Vienna.”

The chairman of the Social Democratic Trade Unions (FSG) and the Police Union, Hermann Greylinger said in an interview that the police don’t want to carry out these checks.

Legislators in parliaments propose and pass laws with the tacit presumption that such legislation will ultimately be enforced by the state power apparatus. However, if such legislators or judges should step too far out of bounds by attempting to prevent large demonstrations, as was the case in Berlin a few months ago, or by announcing a determination to implement potentially dangerous and transparently illegal mandates, then it is a duty for those who would be encumbered with the repercussions to announce that they will refuse to play along. This public rejection by the union organization, on behalf of the armed forces and police, appears to have been suppressed by the Austrian state media because it obviously represented a slap in the face of governmental overreach.

In Austria a larger segment of the population has refused to get their recommended shots than in Germany, where the population is more compliant toward authority. It remains to be seen whether the current crew of party leaders who went along with the announced mandates will retain their functions in the wake of planned public resistance and police rejection of these government plans.

Indicting Instigators

Based on numerous media presentations, no group of individuals is more strongly associated with the ongoing totalitarian campaign to push toxic shots onto the world’s population, to bring on a new era, than Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum organization, which has hosted annual assemblies in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos in January, attended by influential business people, economists, top politicians, media, and technical functionaries from non-governmental organizations among others. Schwab provoked much controversy and revulsion for the contents of his book Great Reset, published last year. If the self-contradictory pronouncements in the wake of the fabricated virus pandemic made little sense it was because they were merely part of a larger playbook, according to which the population is to be manipulated to accept a new utopian order referred to as Trans-humanism. A reduced population surviving the envisaged transformation is to merge with new technology and thereby extend themselves. Trans-humanism is the fantasy goal and Technocracy is the ideological basis to get there.

At the end of Session #79 in the weekly Corona Investigative Committee meeting Patrick M Wood, author of Technocracy Rising, explained the genesis of this movement in the early 1930s, which for a while was centered at Columbia University. It has merged with the Trilateral Commission, the UN Sustainability initiative, and runs on a parallel track with the “Climate Change” cult. As a few privileged elitists will be able to extend their lives, everybody else is regarded as cattle. This ideological movement is indeed inhumane, and everybody is supposed to accept this. In this regard one is reminded of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, or just the most basic Talmudic principles. Wood provides a cohesive explanation detailing how various observed political phenomena, that do not fall within a binary left / right paradigm, fit together within the overarching scheme of Technocracy. Klaus Schwab takes on the role of cult leader, or guru, and attendees of the World Economic Forum are the devotees.

As has been the case with other cultist leaders, affluent people tend to be attracted to the exclusive movement and donate much of their wealth to spread the message. As a totalitarian ideology Technocracy stipulates that the entire world population must become injected with one of the toxic substances being foisted onto the public. Many of the world’s current leaders, such as Merkel, Macron, Newsom, Blair, and many more, began their political careers in the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program many years ago and are now collectively well networked. They have long since become activist devotees serving the Technocracy agenda.

It is not hard to surmise that Schwab is regarded as a most odious individual. A couple of years ago his request to receive regular or at least honorary Swiss citizenship was rejected, even though he has purportedly lived there for six decades from the time he studied at the university in Zurich. (By contrast, pop singer Tina Turner got full Swiss citizenship a few years ago without apparent difficulty.) While at Harvard University, he became a protégée of Henry Kissinger. Under his tutelage Schwab began his career by organizing a meeting for executives. Subsequent gatherings eventually became the annual World Economic Forum.

There are plenty of industry groups that have lost out to both the “Climate Change” and “Corona Pandemic” constructs, including oil and gas, airlines, aviation, automobiles, hotels, casinos, cruise ships, restaurants, and entertainment, among others. The executives from these organizations are not likely to be Schwab devotees and would presumably be happy to see his influence neutralized. In Switzerland, where high-end tourism still plays an important economic role, business has gone down significantly due to measures that restrict personal contacts. It is unclear why all these sectors have not seemed to have been able to organize a coordinated response to the pernicious agenda of Schwab and his cohorts.

Just a few weeks ago, in mid-November, rumors were circulating that Schwab had been arrested at his residence in Cologny in the canton of Geneva, due to a criminal complaint, and was charged with fraud for his involvement in the Covid scandal. The initial report was not officially corroborated, and multiple fact-checker sites then claimed it was a case of false news. The denials were very specific, which left open the possibility that perhaps he may have been subject to questioning in an investigation. However, given that crimes against humanity are serious transgressions, so also are acts that aid and abet such major crimes. In view of Schwab’s central position in this criminal enterprise in association with Nuremberg Code violations, it is hard to conceive that there would not be sufficient evidence upon which to indict Schwab as a titular coordinator or crime boss.

Though the annual meeting early this year was cancelled, as was a planned event in Singapore, the World Economic Forum web site shows the date for its next meeting to be between 17-22 January in 2022, only a few weeks away. The theme is to be “Working Together, Restoring Trust”, which at least tacitly acknowledges a loss of trust. The quickest way to end the loss of trust of the thinking and critical people toward their governments would be to arrest and charge Schwab and his collaborators at the upcoming Davos meeting under criminal charges that would lead to prosecutions. This would be an easy operation since there are only two access roads to the town, from the north and south, when the Flüela Pass, which connects to the Engadin Valley, is closed for the winter. Last Sunday Swiss citizens held a referendum on the issue of a tightened Covid policy proposal, including required documentation, which a majority of voters endorsed. Based on the election results, a majority of voters in many rural regions were opposed. People who join the police forces, which would execute a mass arrest order, tend to come from these more conservative regions, especially in the eastern and central parts of the country.

More likely than such a mass arrest would be for an international tribunal to be held, to collect evidence, in a similar manner that the Corona Investigative Committee has been engaging in fact-finding sessions for over a year. As more people understand the direct link between ongoing totalitarian offensives by numerous governments and the influence that Schwab and his associates have over these totalitarian public officials, it will become increasingly difficult for the remaining people of good conscience who are in a position to act, to do a favor for humanity and help end this new war.

To summarize, everybody concerned about the future of humanity can play at least a minor role in spreading the message of resistance to increase public awareness about what is unfolding and what ought to be done in response.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Kurdish project in Syria would be a new Israel in the Middle East

By Eva Bartlett | RT | December 2, 2021

Syrians accuse the Western-backed Kurdish enclave in the country of using ethnic cleansing and child soldiers against them to form a new anti-Arab state. The parallels with Israel’s creation in the 1940s are striking.

Kurdish forces in Syria have been lauded by many in the West as being fighters for freedom and an autonomous society. But, unless you’ve been following independent researchers and the Syrian media, you might be unaware of the crimes the US-backed group have been committing over a number of years.

On November 25, the Daily Sabah (a website not sympathetic to the Syrian government) reported on one of their most sickening practices. It revealed, “YPG/PKK terrorists detained three more 15-year-old girls – Hediyye Abdurrahim Anter, Evin Jalal Halil and Ayana Idris Ibrahim – in Amuda in Hassakeh province on Nov. 21 to forcibly recruit them as ‘child fighters.’ The terror group detained two children, aged 13 and 16, in early August. And two children aged 16 and 13 were kidnapped Aug. 23.”

The piece went on to note that this practice of abducting children and forcing them to fight has been documented by the United Nations, with one report stating that the YPG/PKK used more than 400 children between July 2018 and June 2020.

Yet, the world has been led to believe that the self-declared autonomous region – known as Rojava and comprising areas of Hassakeh, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo governorates – is a haven for liberals and feminists, with freedom-loving Kurdish fighters based there fighting ISIS and liberating Syria.

Indeed, the YPG Rojava page claims: “The YPG was set up to protect the legacy and values of the people of Rojava and is founded on the principles of the paradigm of a democratic society, ecology and woman’s liberation. Without preferring or discriminating any religion, language, nation, gender or political parties, the YPG is protecting the country against all attacks from outside. The YPG is the Democratic Nation’s defense force and is not related to any political party.”

It reads like a feelgood fairytale, but is not based in reality.

The utopian image of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes the YPG and PKK, is betrayed by the kidnappings, which sadly are not a new development. Search for QSD – their Arabic acronym – on Syrian media and you’ll see regular updates on Kurdish forces kidnapping civilians and journalists.

This image is further betrayed by their ethnic cleansing of indigenous Syrians from the northeastern Syrian regions Kurdish forces occupy and collaboration with illegally occupying US forces.

But this won’t be highlighted in corporate media. Instead, you will still find odes romanticizing Kurdish fighters, with one such recent story deceptively saying that the areas controlled by Kurdish forces have a “predominantly Kurdish population” – a claim not backed up by the truth.

As author Stephen Gowans detailed in a 2017 article, Kurds in Syria comprise, “only a small percentage of the Syrian population… Estimates of the proportion of the total Kurd population living in Syria vary from two to seven percent based on population figures presented in the CIA World Factbook.”

And yet, Assyrians, Arameans, and other Syrians who have lived there for generations should accept being ruled, or expelled, by Kurds?

Gowans went on to note, “Kurdish fighters have used the campaign against ISIS as an opportunity to extend Kurdistan into traditionally Arab territories in which Kurds have never been in the majority.”

In 2018, Syrian journalist Sarah Abed wrote of the SDF’s kidnapping and ethnic cleansing, noting not only the abductions of men, but, again, children. She recorded how Eddie Gaboro Hanna, the founder of Patriarchal Relief Care Australia, a group providing assistance to Christian families impacted by wars in Syria and Iraq, had explained, “They are taking young Christian boys by force to sign them up for the Kurdish military and send them to the front line.”

And he added, “Christians are treated as second-class citizens [here] in their own land. Just like how ISIS has the Islamic tax they have their own Kurdish one. They’ve replaced ISIS.”

Although the BBC’s coverage of the Kurds’ activities in Syria is predictably pro-SDF, in 2015, even it reported on their ethnic cleansing and displacing of indigenous Syrians. Citing an Amnesty International report, it noted the YPG were accused of “razing entire villages after capturing them from Islamic State (IS),” in Hassakeh and Raqqa provinces.

The Kurds’ history in Syria

In January 2019, I spoke with geopolitical analyst and Sputnik contributor Laith Marouf about the Kurds in Syria. A descendant of eastern Syria’s Deir ez-Zor governorate, part of which is now occupied by Kurds, Marouf had a lot to say about the history of the Kurds in Syria and this 21st century land-usurpation project.

He told me, “There was a wave of Kurdish refugees coming down to Syria (from Turkey) in the 1940s, and the second wave of them in the 1960s when the PKK started the armed rebellion against the Turkish government in what was Arab lands.”

“They were given citizenship by the Syrian government. They were armed and given protection by the Syrian state to fight for their liberation in the Kurdistan mountains in Turkey, and the Syrian government housed the leadership of all the Kurdish resistance up until the early 90s.”

Marouf noted that Syria’s support for the Kurds saw Turkey threatening to invade in the 1990s and building numerous dams on the Euphrates, cutting the water flow. Yet, Syria refused to hand over PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan. Marouf emphasized: “Syria almost went to war with Turkey, and the Syrian people (in the northeast) went thirsty and the agricultural fields—the breadbasket of Syria—almost collapsed those couple of years, to protect Kurdish rights.”

“And then what happens now is some crazies are saying there’s something called Rojava and that they can secede and colonize and settle and steal parts of Syrian lands.”

He, too, spoke of the years of kidnappings and disappearances of those critical of Kurdish rule. “Even Kurdish Syrians that are critical of what the YPG is doing, even remotely critical professors in the universities in Hassakeh and Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor, were disappeared. And these were just critical Kurds.

“So you could imagine what happened to the Assyrian and the Arab leaders in the area, thinkers, tribal leaders, ex-military – huge amounts of disappearances and forced displacements.”

And as Abed’s article highlighted, formerly Assyrian villages in Hassakeh and Raqqa have been fully taken over by Kurdish forces. “They’re moving in the Kurdish militias and their family members into those villages and creating new ethnically pure towns and villages that are Kurdish. And this is expanding to the holdings of the Syrian churches and their Armenian churches, they confiscated all their land.”

So much, then, for the Rojava “legacy and values” that included “without preferring or discriminating any religion, language, nation, gender or political parties.”

Marouf also said, “They have enforced an educational curriculum on all the schools—including schools that are run by ethnic and/or religious groups – so all those that are run by the churches are being told that they have to teach a certain curriculum that specifically promotes and propagates falsehoods about the Kurdish control of the area.”

“When the Assyrians refused, because these are their own private schools that are controlled by the church, the YPG went ahead and shut down all the schools, with armed men making sure the kids cannot go to school.”

The ethnic cleansing and forced expulsion of indigenous people sounds horribly familiar, as Marouf pointed out. “So, the reality is that we have an ethno-nationalist settler colonial state being enforced by the empire, called Rojava – and it’s being sold the exact way that Israel was being sold in the 1940s. It’s like cut and paste propaganda saying that we’re creating a utopia of secular and socialist government in the ‘sea of barbaric Arabs.’”

Over the years, I’ve had Rojava supporters criticize me for respecting Syria’s sovereignty and speaking critically about the West’s attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. Instead, according to them, I should have been supporting this false utopia which has killed and displaced many. To them, I say you have been deluded, as much of the Western left has on Syria.

And you can rest assured that had it been Syria committing these crimes, the media would be reporting loudly and regularly. But because they are being carried out by puppets of the West, all is quiet on that front.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years).

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

America’s pro-Israel diplomacy at the UN hits a new level


US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and President of the Security Council speaks during a press conference for the Security Council programme of work in March at the UN Headquarters in New York on 1 March 2021. [TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images]

US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield on 1 March 2021. [TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images]
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | December 2, 2021

Israel seems to have acquired another formidably biased ally in the latest US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Her Trump era predecessor Nikki Haley once said, “If there’s anything I have no patience for, it is bullies – and the UN was being such a bully to Israel because they could.” Thomas-Greenfield is going down the same route; less fiery language, perhaps, and more diplomatic tact, but subjugating Palestinians to Israel’s colonial violence nonetheless.

During a briefing to the UN Security Council this week, Thomas-Greenfield spoke about Palestinians’ security concerns while invalidating them in the same speech by upholding Israel’s security narrative.

Israeli settlers, she noted, are attacking Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, while settlement expansion is threatening the two-state paradigm. However, Israel has “real and understandable security concerns” about which the UN is not doing enough. That’s if the US narrative is to be believed which, of course, it shouldn’t.

Israelis “interpret the overwhelming focus on Israel in this body as a denial of Israel’s right to exist and an unfair focus on this one country – and they are correct,” Thomas-Greenfield declared. Only a few days ago, the UN Secretary General made sure that the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People did not infringe on Israel’s colonial existence. So how can the US ambassador claim that the UN is denying Israel’s right to exist, when the two-state framework and the 1947 Partition Plan endorsed colonialism in Palestine and has protected it ever since?

The UN’s “unfair” focus on Israel is favourable to the settler-colonial enterprise. Its alleged unfairness has generated unrivalled impunity for Israel, while Palestinians have been begging for their political rights for decades to no avail. While Israel is recognised, endorsed and supported, Palestinians have lost so much territory that recognition of a Palestinian state renders no tangible benefits in terms of state-building. The “unfair focus” to which Thomas-Greenfield refers has allowed a colonial settlement project – with war crimes, as the International Criminal Court determined – to continue without any punitive measures, while Palestinians remain stuck in a perpetual cycle of dispossession. “Unfair focus” has also prioritised Israel’s existence over the Palestinian right of return, which the international community has long since written off as unfeasible and worthy only as a symbolic gesture, as opposed to a necessary political reckoning.

Thomas-Greenfield’s rhetoric takes the purported anti-Israel bias at the UN to a whole new level. The UN does not speak of decolonisation, let alone “a denial of Israel’s right to exist”, as she puts it. On the contrary, the UN affirmed Israel’s existence despite knowing that the creation of the settler-colonial state was based upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land.

In fact, so favourable is the UN’s focus on Israel, that Palestine is defined through Israel’s colonial requirements that will only consider complete annihilation of the land and its people as an acceptable end result. Hence the silence on Israel’s de-facto annexation of ever more Palestinian land, while issuing futile reprimands on settlement expansion and promoting dissociation between Israel’s violations of international law to avoid speaking of decolonisation. In light of all the pro-Israel bias at the UN, what else do the US and Israel expect from the international community?

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | 3 Comments

Putin Wants Formal Security Guarantees From the Empire, No to Ukraine as a NATO Missile Silo

Ceremony for presenting foreign ambassadors’ letters of credence

The Kremlin | December 1, 2021

… “[W]e express our concern not only over the fact that the international community is acting separately and cannot unite to address truly important problems, but also over how some of our partners are behaving towards our country, towards Russia, trying to restrain our development in every possible way, to exert sanctions pressure and, moreover, to escalate tensions near our borders.

By the way, the threat on our western border is really growing, and we have mentioned it many times. It is enough to see how close NATO military infrastructure has moved to Russia’s borders. This is more than serious for us.

In this situation, we are taking appropriate military-technical measures. But, I repeat, we are not threatening anyone and it is at the very least irresponsible to accuse us of this, given the real state of affairs. This would mean laying the blame at the wrong door, as the Russian saying goes.

In my speech at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs I already stressed that the priority facing Russian diplomacy at this juncture is to try to ensure that Russia is granted reliable and long-term security guarantees.

While engaging in dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on the elaboration of concrete agreements that would rule out any further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of weapons systems posing a threat to us in close proximity to Russia’s territory. We suggest that substantive talks on this topic should be started.

I would like to note in particular that we need precisely legal, juridical guarantees,because our Western colleagues have failed to deliver on verbal commitments they made. Specifically, everyone is aware of the assurances they gave verbally that NATO would not expand to the east. But they did absolutely the opposite in reality. In effect, Russia’s legitimate security concerns were ignored and they continue to be ignored in the same manner even now.

We are not demanding any special terms for ourselves. We understand that any agreements must take into account the interests of both Russia and all other states in the Euro-Atlantic region. A calm and stable situation should be ensured for everyone and is needed by all without exception.

That said, I would like to stress that Russia is interested precisely in constructive collaboration and in equitable international cooperation, and this remains the central tenet of Russian foreign policy. I hope that you will convey this signal to the leaders of your states.” … Full address

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 1 Comment

More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions


The great body of evidence (comparative research studies and high-quality pieces of evidence and reporting judged to be relevant to this analysis) shows that COVID-19 lockdowns, shelter-in-place policies, masks, school closures, and mask mandates have failed in their purpose of curbing transmission or reducing deaths. These restrictive policies were ineffective and devastating failures, causing immense harm especially to the poorer and vulnerable within societies.

Nearly all governments have attempted compulsory measures to control the virus, but no government can claim success. The research indicates that mask mandates, lockdowns, and school closures have had no discernible impact of virus trajectories.

Bendavid reported “in the framework of this analysis, there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (‘lockdowns’) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.” We’ve known this for a very long time now but governments continue to double down, causing misery upon people with ramifications that will likely take decades or more to repair.

The benefits of the societal lockdowns and restrictions have been totally exaggerated and the harms to our societies and children have been severe: the harms to children, the undiagnosed illness that will result in excess mortality in years to come, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation in our young people, drug overdoses and suicides due to the lockdown policies, the crushing isolation due to the lockdowns, psychological harmsdomestic and child abuse, sexual abuse of childrenloss of jobs and businesses and the devastating impact, and the massive numbers of deaths resulting from the lockdowns that will impact heavily on women and minorities.

Now we have whispers again for the new lockdowns in response to the Omicron variant that, by my estimations, will be likely infectious but not more lethal.

How did we get here? We knew that we could never eradicate this mutable virus (that has an animal reservoir) with lockdowns and that it would likely become endemic like other circulating common cold coronaviruses. When we knew an age-risk stratified approach was optimal (focused protection as outlined in the Great Barrington Declaration) and not carte blanche policies when we had evidence of a 1,000-fold differential in risk of death between a child and an elderly person. We knew of the potency and success of early ambulatory outpatient treatment in reducing the risk of hospitalization and death in the vulnerable.

It was clear very early on that Task Forces and medical advisors and decision-makers were not reading the evidence, were not up to speed with the science or data, did not understand the evidence, did not ‘get’ the evidence, and were blinded to the science, often driven by their own prejudices, biases, arrogance, and ego. They remain ensconced in sheer academic sloppiness and laziness. It was clear that the response was not a public health one. It was a political one from day one and continues today.

recent study (pre-print) captures the essence and catastrophe of a lockdown society and the hollowing out of our children by looking at how children learn (3 months to 3 years old) and finding across all measures that “children born during the pandemic have significantly reduced verbal, motor, and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.” Researchers also reported that “males and children in lower socioeconomic families have been most affected. Results highlight that even in the absence of direct SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness, the environmental changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly and negatively affecting infant and child development.”

Perhaps Donald Luskin of the Wall Street Journal best captures what we have stably witnessed since the start of these unscientific lockdowns and school closures: “Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections.”

The British Columbia Center for Disease Control (BCCDC) issued a full report in September 2020 on the impact of school closures on children and found para “that i) children comprise a small proportion of diagnosed COVID-19 cases, have less severe illness, and mortality is rare ii) children do not appear to be a major source of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in households or schools, a finding which has been consistent globally iii) there are important differences between how influenza and SARS-CoV-2 are transmitted. School closures may be less effective as a prevention measure for COVID-19 iv) school closures can have severe and unintended consequences for children and youth v) school closures contribute to greater family stress, especially for female caregivers, while families balance child care and home learning with employment demands vi) family violence may be on the rise during the COVID pandemic, while the closure of schools and childcare centres may create a gap in the safety net for children who are at risk of abuse and neglect.”

Now places like Austria (November 2021) have re-entered the world of lockdown lunacy only to be outmatched by Australia. Indeed, an illustration of the spurious need for these ill-informed actions is that they are being done in the face of clear scientific evidence showing that during strict prior societal lockdowns, school lockdowns, mask mandates, and additional societal restrictions, the number of positive cases went up!

The pandemic response today remains a purely political one.

What follows is the current totality of the body of evidence (available comparative studies and high-level pieces of evidence, reporting, and discussion) on COVID-19 lockdowns, masks, school closures, and mask mandates. There is no conclusive evidence supporting claims that any of these restrictive measures worked to reduce viral transmission or deaths. Lockdowns were ineffective, school closures were ineffective, mask mandates were ineffective, and masks themselves were and are ineffective and harmful. … continue reading

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Australia has recorded 11 times more Deaths in 8 months following Covid-19 Vaccination than it has Deaths following every other Vaccine combined in over 50 years


Serious questions have been raised as to why medicine regulators have not pulled the Covid-19 vaccines from distribution to the general public after data on the Australian Government site revealed that there have been eleven times as many deaths reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines over a period of 8 months than deaths reported as adverse reactions to every other available vaccine combined over a period of 50 years.

The Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is the medicine regulator for the Australian Government, and as part of the Department of Health, the TGA regulates the quality, supply, and advertising of medicines, pathology devices, medical devices, blood products and most other therapeutics.

However, a Freedom of Information request made by Doctors for Covid Ethics back in February 2021 revealed that the TGA never saw the extremely limited study data for the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine prior to granting it emergency approval and deeming it safe to be injected into the arms of Australians.

The TGA originally attempted to suppress the FOI request by requesting a 6-month extension in view of the amount of work required to respond satisfactorily. But after a complaint was made to the Office of the Information Commissioner the TGA responded confirming that they had never seen or requested the patient data from Pfizer and simply accepted Pfizer’s report of their study as fact, despite their proven history of fraudulent claims.

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc., have been fined £3,573,465,793.97p since the year 2000 for over 80 offences / violations.

This includes over £26.1million in Kickbacks and Bribery offences, £870million in False Claims offences and £2.5billion in healthcare related offences.

The TGA’s admission that they have never seen the raw trial data for the Pfizer jab prior to granting it approval, and Pfizer’s scandalous history of fraudulent claims and bribes, may go some way to explaining why the TGA have so far refused to pull the Covid-19 injections from distribution to the public, despite 6.5 times more adverse reactions, and 11 times more deaths being reported due to the jabs over a period of 8 months than have been reported to all other available vaccines combined since the 1st January 1971.

The TGA has a ‘Database of Adverse Event Notifications‘ that allows visitors to search adverse events reported for medicines including vaccines. The reports come from a wide range of sources, including members of the public, GPs, other health professionals and the therapeutic goods industry.

By searching the database for ‘Vaccine’ and deselecting the four available Covid-19 vaccines, with a date parameter of ‘1st January 1971 – 11th November 2021‘ the following results can be found –


Over those 50 years and 9 and a half months there have been 76 different vaccines available to the Australian public (excluding Covid-19 vaccines), and there have been 19,205 individual reports to all 76 vaccines combined, including 59 deaths. The TGA state that they think there is a possibility that the available vaccines caused 12,366 of those reported adverse reactions.

By carrying out a new search on the database for ‘Covid-19 Vaccine‘, with a date parameter of ‘1st December 2020 – 11th November 2021’ the following results can be found –


The results shows that there have been 81,318 reports made against the available Covid-19 vaccines, including 656 deaths. The TGA state that they they think there is a possibility that the Covid-19 vaccines caused 79.953 of those reported adverse reactions.

The first Covid-19 vaccine was administered in Australia in February 2021. This means that there have been been 11 times more deaths, 4 times more reports of adverse reactions, and 6.5 times more reports of adverse reactions that the TGA suspects were more than likely due to the Covid-19 vaccines, than have been reported to all other available vaccines combined over a period of 50 years and 9.5 months.

According to the TGA database, the leading cause of death due to the Covid-19 vaccines has been an ‘adverse event following immunisation’. The second leading cause of death has been dyspnoea (difficulty breathing), followed by pulmonary embolism (blocked blood vessel in the lung), then cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and then cardiac arrest.

These numbers raise serious questions as to why the Covid-19 vaccines have not been pulled from distribution to the public when just four separate vaccines for Covid-19 have caused over 11 times as many deaths in just 8 months, than 76 separate vaccines combined have caused over a period of nearly 51 years.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 2 Comments

Greece plans to send troops to the Sahel

By Lucas Leiroz | December 2, 2021

In a recent statement, the Greek government confirmed Athens’ interest in sending troops to cooperate with the French armed forces in the African Sahel. The project is still under consideration but tends to be approved due to the strong pressure that Greece receives from Paris to “compensate” French efforts to protect Greek territorial integrity in tensions with Turkey. The move sounds truly anti-strategic for Greece, considering that the country will have enemies it previously did not have and will enter conflicts that have nothing to do with Greek geopolitical interests.

In a recent press conference, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos said that his country’s political and military leaders are currently discussing the feasibility of sending troops to Africa, where soldiers will join French military bases in order to assist in the Paris-led campaign against insurgent groups that are proliferating in the Sahel and across the region between the Sahara Desert and the West Coast.

These were some of his words: “We are considering sending a group of combat soldiers to Sahel. These are not military advisers, we already have such in the area, these are permanent combat members of the Armed Forces (…) If Turkey tries to attack and we ask for help from France, based on the military agreement we have signed, then the French forces will be there, they must be there (…) We are for them and they are for us”.

When talking about this possibility of mutual assistance, Panagiotopoulos is mentioning the recent bilateral defense cooperation agreement signed by both countries in October, which determine a series of measures to be implemented in order to strengthen the Franco-Greek military partnership. The agreement establishes that both countries must cooperate militarily with each other in conflict scenarios and also enumerates forms of commercial cooperation through measures such as, for example, the requirement that the Greek State buy frigates produced by the French naval industry.

Panagiotopoulos categorically states that sending Greek troops to Africa is a strategic measure for Greece, since, as a way of complying with the agreement signed with Paris, it would create a favorable precedent in bilateral relations and compel the French to repay the kindness, in case tensions escalate with Turkey in the future. However, Panagiotopoulos’ premise is absolutely wrong. It is not Greece that is setting this type of condition, but France. Athens is not freely proposing to send its soldiers to the Sahel – it is France that is demanding it, so there is no reason to consider this type of maneuver profitable in any way for the Greeks.

In the same sense, this type of cooperation would never benefit Greece for the simple fact that there is no military equivalence between both countries. France is one of the greatest military powers in the world, with high combat power and even nuclear weapons, maintaining an active expansionist policy in Africa and the Mediterranean, in addition to occupying a leading and prominent role in the European Union. The current situation of the Greek State is that of a country with very low military capacity, which is under constant pressure from an insurgent and expansionist power (Turkey) and which seeks alliances with France in order to defend its territorial integrity in the face of imminent threats. For France to demand “retribution” from Greece for its support on the Turkish issue is truly absurd, considering that Greece already has enough problems and difficulties just in its tensions with Turkey. Sending soldiers to Africa will significantly weaken Greece’s defense potential and leave the country even more vulnerable in its regional conflicts. So, Paris is acting abusively by requesting Greek troops in the Sahel.

Obviously, if both countries already have an agreement, this must be accomplished – or vetoed. The attitude that most benefits Greek strategic interests would be to find non-direct ways of cooperating with France on the Sahel, perhaps with logistical or intelligence support, but renouncing active military participation. If France continued to demand the deployment of troops, Athens would simply have to abandon the bilateral agreement and find another, less abusive way to establish partnerships. The current situation seems unsustainable. France will be weakening Greece with the demand for troops in African territory, and there is no sense for Athens to continue in a military agreement, whose objective is to strengthen the defense.

For years, France has maintained troops in the Sahel without any success in controlling the region. Paris is unable to maintain an occupation policy throughout the Sahel due to the immensity of the territory, which makes the area vulnerable to occupation by insurgent groups. Clandestine militias – some of them terrorists – currently control much of the Sahel zone and French troops are failing to pacify the region.

Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that in recent months a wave of indignation has started on the part of African communities against the French occupation. The main cities of West Africa are experiencing demonstrations in favor of the expulsion of the French armed forces due to the chaos and widespread, inefficient violence while being unable to contain the spread of terrorism in the region. In fact, it has become increasingly complicated for France to maintain its expansionism on African soil and now Paris seems interested in handing over to Athens a part of the responsibility of managing the chaos created by the French in the Sahel.

The Greek government has nothing to gain by engaging in civil wars on another continent that have absolutely nothing to do with Athens’ geopolitical interests. France is acting abusively by delegating the responsibility for this conflict to the Greeks. It is up to the Greek government to act prudently and avoid further conflicts, seeking to strengthen the country to face the current problems.

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

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

How the Corporate Media Launched a Disinformation Campaign to Protect Fauci

By Leighton Woodhouse | December 1, 2021

By now you’ve surely heard about Anthony Fauci and his laboratory beagles, but in case you haven’t, it goes like this: For forty years, Fauci, as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has funded gruesome experiments on animals. Beagles in particular are one of the favored species for these experiments, because of their docile and people-pleasing nature, which makes for less hassle for the humans who subject them to pain and suffering. In one of these NIAID-funded experiments, in Tunisia, sedated beagles’ heads were put into mesh bags with swarms of starved sand flies, who fed on the live dogs.

The other thing you may have heard is that the story is just another right-wing conspiracy theory. You may have heard this from The Washington Post, from any of a number of self-proclaimed “fact checkers,” or maybe even from the globally renowned Beacon of Honesty David Frum of The Atlantic.

I’ve been reporting on this story for the past few weeks. In fact, I’ve been reporting it as closely as anyone, if not more so. It’s been an extremely educational experience for me, but not because I was unfamiliar with the industry of animal experimentation, or NIAID’s leading role within it. What’s been educational is seeing up close and first-hand how the mainstream media constructs and deploys a brazen misinformation campaign.

First of all, just to get this detail out of the way: the story is true. As head of NIAID, the second biggest institute within the National Institutes of Health, Anthony Fauci has spent billions of dollars over four decades funding scientific experiments on animals, many of them stomach-turning. NIAID does not deny this. In fact, the published scientific papers that describe these heinous experiments routinely credit NIAID and NIH as their funders, and sometimes as direct collaborators. You can look them up yourself: here are just a few of them.

Of the numerous horrific experiments on dogs funded by agencies and budgets controlled by Fauci, there’s only one that is in dispute: the one in Tunisia. That is the experiment which involved placing sedated beagles’ heads in mesh bags with swarms of starved sand flies, which feasted on the live dogs in order to transmit to them a parasite that carries a disease called “leishmaniasis.” The scientific paper that described the results of that experiment, published on July 15, originally credited NIAID as a funder.

“Enhanced attraction of sand fly vectors of Leishmania infantum to dogs infected with zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis,”PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, July 15, 2021

But after this ethical monstrosity was publicized and denounced by an anti-animal testing group specializing in a building left/right coalitions — the White Coat Waste Project, which, as Glenn Greenwald reported in this space two weeks ago, became the target of a Washington Post hit piece as punishment for denouncing Fauci — this particular experiment created a minor media sensation and a major headache for NIH. In the wake of that recent controversy, the paper’s authors — just three weeks ago, on November 11 — suddenly retracted their statement about NIAID funding. In wooden language that reads like a hostage note, they now claim that when they said that NIAID had paid for this experiment, it was by accident.

“Correction” in the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Nov. 11, 2021

There are plenty of reasons to doubt that denial, which I’ll go into shortly. But ultimately: who cares? This was just one revolting NIAID-funded experiment among many that White Coat Waste exposed, and not even the worst of them. NIAID does not deny funding any of those other experiments, which are just a few out of thousands of animal experiments which NIAID has underwritten going back to the 1980s. It has long been known that experiments on dogs rarely if ever yield any tangible benefits for medical research regarding humans, making these experiments not only morally reprehensible but useless. Even if we were to concede NIAID’s denial that they funded this one specific test — and there is no reason to grant them that (again, I’ll get into this shortly) — it would put only the slightest dent in the overall story, which is that Anthony Fauci is personally accountable for billions of dollars worth of wasteful and cruel experiments on innocent, terrified animals.

Fauci’s highly cynical strategy — and therefore the strategy of his media allies — is to focus everyone’s attention on this one sole project in Tunisia, then deny that he funded it. The obvious goal is to obscure and bury what they cannot deny even if that denial were true: namely, that agencies and budgets controlled by Fauci fund thousands of similar or worse experiments on dogs. Not only does NIAID not deny this core fact, but, as demonstrated above, they admit this in multiple reports and experimentation reports.

But now we get to the part of this episode that was particularly educational to me. That single denial — a highly dubious one — generated an orgy of mainstream media reporters tripping over each other to dismiss the entire story of Fauci animal abuse as “misinformation.”

Before NIAID issued this denial, there was almost no coverage at all of the story in the mainstream media. With a few isolated exceptions, it was covered only in conservative media, independent media, and social media for obvious reasons: since it reflects poorly on Fauci, the liberal sector of the corporate media has no interest in doing anything other than burying it. But as soon as NIAID chummed the water with its questionable denial, suddenly it was a hot topic in the press: not as a story about animal abuse, but about “right-wing misinformation.” In other words, corporate journalists had no interest in any of this — including the misuse of taxpayer funds to support ethically monstrous and medically useless experiments — until they found a way to wield it as a cudgel to attack right-wing media and shield Fauci.

Such cynical partisan scheming is appropriate or at least expected from DNC operatives, but not actual journalists. But that, of course, is the point: these corporate journalists resemble and see themselves far more as the former than the latter. And their conduct here proves that.

The first journalist to ride to Fauci’s rescue was The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. In his October 25 column, Milbank cited NIAID’s denial and, from that alone, concluded that the entire story was a product of “the right-wing disinformation machine and its crusade against Fauci.” (When I challenged Milbank on these claims on Twitter, he blocked me.) Then, following Milbank’s lead, suddenly a slew of “fact checker” websites that had never weighed in on the subject before put up posts casting doubt on the story. … Full article$$$

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bavaria Inches Closer to a Vaccine Mandate for Public Sector Employees

eugyppius | December 2, 2021

This one cuts fairly close to home for me.

Employees of the Free State of Bavaria who work in hospitals, universities and related areas have now been asked to submit proof of vaccination. Those who refuse will be required to present the results of two self-financed PCR tests every week, or face termination. The PCR tests of course are expensive and an enormous hassle, and the requirement has nothing to do with preventing infection. All state offices are also subject to so-called 3G rules; unvaccinated employees who aren’t telecommuting already have to submit negative antigen tests every day.

In response to this absurd legal harassment, an employee of the Institute of Pathology of the LMU Faculty of Medicine, here in Munich, released a brief internet video pointing out the boundless absurdity of the new rules:

In less than five minutes, she catalogued all the obvious absurdities we have confronted for months: Corona deaths are a small portion of overall mortality right now; problems with hospital capacity arise from staffing shortages, not Corona; the new rules, which harass unvaccinated healthcare personnel with de facto weekly fines of around 150 Euros, will only make these staffing shortages worse.

After her video had racked up thousands of views, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität, her employer, released this astounding statement:

LMU was surprised today to learn of an online video posted by an employee of the Institute of Pathology at the Faculty of Medicine. LMU distances itself in the strongest possible terms from the video contents, and point out that filming or posting video on LMU premises for private purposes and without permission is forbidden. The employee in question has already been banned from the premises; she has also been released from official duties with immediate effect. A termination without notice is also in process. Today’s circumstances require everyone’s prudence and consideration to help the sick as far as possible and to support overburdened healthcare staff. Disseminating videos such as this is surely no help in this regard.

Social media is full of videos taken “on LMU premises for private purposes”; no few of them are histrionic hospital staff hyperventilating about what a crisis Corona is. All that’s fine, but a brief video taken in an empty mortuary is grounds for immediate termination and banning from the university.

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Can you Handle the Truth? (If we Tolerate this, then our Children will be Next)

Out of the Mouths of Babes (An Unexpected Lesson in Truth)

By Greg Maybury | Pox Amerikana | November 28, 2021

As you can see my handle is Greg Maybury. Who I am is not that important. But my message is. I’ve a story to tell, and in doing so I’m going to draw on both my professional and personal experience. I hope what follows resonates with some folks.

First, a bit of humour to get us going, if only because if we lose that, we’re really done. In one of my previous lives I was a high school teacher (an experience I’ll touch on again later). Back in those days I had some hair, and according to many folks I could’ve passed for Jack Nicholson’s kid brother. This resemblance didn’t go unnoticed by my students at the time. The would often dine out on this by joking about it, occasionally improvising some of Jack the Lad’s more infamous lines whenever the opportunity presented itself.

Now mostly this was done so as to get a laugh or two from their classmates, ‘take the piss’ out of yours truly, as well as I suspect to distract me from my sense of mission. Which as a teacher was to get the lazy buggers to do some work on occasion! There was a time when one of my more work-shy charges ran out of excuses for why he’d not finished a certain task. In semi-mock exasperation, I began giving him grief. Saying something like: “I’m sick of your lame excuses mate. Why not just tell me the truth for once? You’re a lazy sod, and can’t be arsed!”

Big mistake on my part. Without missing a beat, this kid stood up behind his desk, leaned forward with a cheeky grin and just the right touch of dramatic flourish (and right away I saw what was coming). He bellowed to ensure everyone heard: “Mistar Maybury, you can’t handle the truth!”, copping the indelible line—and mimicking to a tee the demeanour and the emphasis—Nicholson himself used in the hit movie “A Few Good Men”, then doing the rounds in the cinemas.

By this time the class was in uproar. This was not helped by my own inability to stifle the stupid grin on my own dial, even if the ‘comeback’ came at my own expense. Talk about a “Come in spinner!” moment for your humble. It was hard to beat. (As a reward I resolved never to ask the kid again whether he’d finished an activity I’d assigned him. To this day over twenty years later I expect he’s still dining out on the story with all his mates down at the pub in between lockdowns!)

Anyway lest the point of this yarn be lost on anyone, let me move a bit closer to the purpose of this post. Right from the off we have to ask ourselves, “Can we handle the truth?” of what’s going on with this so-called pandemic, this inflated crisis, this beyond purgatorial Malice in Plunderland pantomime which is playing havoc with our world?

Can we handle the truth about what is being done to our friends and families? Our personal and professional relationships? Our communities? Our schools? Our hospitals? Our social and support networks? Our businesses? Our workplaces? Our lives and lifestyles? Our economy? Our country? And last but not least, can we truly handle the truth about what’s happening to our freedoms under our very noses?

You all know what I’m talking about here: The very things that our parents’, our grandparents’, and our great grandparents’ generations were told (or presumed) they were fighting for when they either volunteered or were conscripted to go and fight, kill and/or die in every war since the Boer War going back over 120 years ago. In all these cases they were ‘making the world safe for democracy’ or some propagandist’s mutant variant of the theme, when in truth that was only half the story. They fought, killed, and/or died to “make the world safe” to be sure, but it wasn’t for democracy as such, not as we know it.

It was in fact ‘deocracy’ they were fighting and killing and dying for. This is an obscure political doctrine with which I’ll wager few are familiar. Put simply: If we take the “m” out of democracy, this is what we end up with. A “deocracy” is

‘committed only to the insatiable drive and hunger for maintaining its ascendancy… [A]ll variant of tyrannies and dictatorships rather of a political, economical, social, religious and/or cultural disposition are in essence a form of deocracy.’

That in essence my friends, is the “end-point” for the New Normalites, the Great Presetters (sic), whose hubris and whose pretensions to omnipotence rival that of your preferred deity. An “end-point” which is no less than a barren, lonely, soulless, heartless, disconnected, enervating, mindless, submissive void. And the awe-inspiring tragedy of it all? It could well be one very much of our own making! If that is we continue to acquiesce to their pretensions.

Now I don’t need to bang on too much about those “freedoms”; if you’ve come this far you all have a pretty clear idea of what the loss of those “freedoms” mean, what’s at stake if we allow them to be tampered with in the way they are so blatantly doing now! We do so not just at our own peril, but that of the next generation of Australians, and thereafter. To be sure, this isn’t just about Australia! Clearly many eyes are on us. People across the globe see us as a ‘bell-weather’ for their own futures. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

However, we all still need to ask ourselves everyday: Can we really handle the truth about any or all of the above? Because what is being imposed on us is happening all under false pretences. It is being enforced by bullying bureaucrats, both elected and unelected, because politicians are little more than “bureaucrats” when it comes down to it! These people justify all this by telling us they are following the advice of technocrats and assorted “experts”. But we all know the definition of an “expert”: An “ex” is a ‘has-been’, and a “spert” is a drip under pressure!

The Difference Between (Truthers and Trusters)

The key point here is that these people do not—let’s rinse n’ repeat those two words, “do not”—have our interests at heart! They never did really. And they definitely do not now. They are “deocrats” in the purest sense of the concept. At the risk of being unkind, those folks who believe these people have our interests at heart need a check-up from the neck-up! To paraphrase Whitney Webb, one of my ‘go-to’ writers on such matters, in placing our trust in them—either implicitly or explicitly—we might as well hand our brains to the deocrats in a bag!

We need to soak up this cogent reality day in and day out. We must never forget from one sunrise to the next whilst this monstrous charade continues to play out, that for these people, “freedom” is a dirty word. At least our notion of freedom is.

Their own notion of “freedom” however is another matter: they have a far different definition of the word than we do. Their idea of “freedom” is on the one hand the unfettered “freedom” to take away from and/or deny us as many of our existing “freedoms” as they can get away with doing, and beyond that reserve the option of imposing new and even more draconian curbs on the few they begrudgingly leave us with. To rehash the very words of one of their glorified foot-soldiers cum mercenaries, a former CIA Director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, theirs is the freedom to lie, to cheat, to steal. They “even have training courses!” Judging by all that is going down, those “courses” are very effective.

At the same time they are quietly (and not so) amassing for themselves ever greater “freedoms” to do whatever they like without any transparency, without accountability, without so much as a ‘by-your-leave’! Their constitution defying diktats, edicts, mandates, and arbitrarily imposed rules and regulations have nothing to do with our public health in general, or about preserving the personal health, well-being, and welfare of ourselves, our families, and our communities. As we have already seen, these diktats etc., are a moving feast anyway, being made up on the fly.

Ask yourself this question: When was the last time any of you heard a politician say?: “We have too much power in our hands. It’s time to give some of that power back to the punters who backed us into office!” Ask yourself who in fact do these politicians, bureaucrats, policy wonks, advisers, diplomats, experts, and technocrats work for? In whose interests and on whose behalf are they acting in formulating and implementing their ill-conceived, self-serving, destructive public proclamations and policies? I mean, if they’d gone out of their way to mismanage this bespoke crisis, they could not have done a better job. Ask yourself this question. How come the response to Covid was so synched across the globe, when “leaders” never agree on anything sans a lengthy, bitter debate?

Those amongst us who can’t seem to handle the truth about what’s happening to our country are of great concern to the rest of us. There are those who don’t want to know about what is the real driver of events! We all know people like that. They are all around us. Some aren’t returning our phone calls, or answering our emails. Others are perhaps at best tolerating our concerns, our doubts, our fears about what’s unfolding. Some have struck us off their dance card.

We should however, be patient with these people. Insofar as they will allow us to do so, we need to keep them on our dance-card. Let our peaceful, informed, calm, measured resistance be an example to them. Let it stand as a message to them. Perhaps at some point, an inspiration.

In recent posts I’ve referred to these people as “trusters”. They trust their political leaders. They trust the corporate, the establishment, the mainstream media. They trust the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies which ‘oversee’ them! They trust in what their professional bodies and their trade unions and their employers tell them. And in doing so they comply without question with their diktats, their edicts, their demands. When their own common sense, their own past experience should tell them there is no basis in reality for that “trust”. Yet in them they still “trust”—almost two years later!

As for those of us who are attuned to the larger, longer term agenda of the Covid Cultists—the aforesaid “New Normalites”—and are resisting it, I’ve referred to them as “truthers”! You all know who you are!

But there is a third group. And that “third group” is crucial for us to connect with if we wish to send a message to our respective state political leaders and legislators, to our Federal government and indeed, to all our political classes within this once great country right across the political spectrum.

That third group comprise the ones who aren’t as readily compliant or complacent as the trusters, and we all know people in this group too. These are people who do harbour grave concerns about the regime which the ‘Pandoras’ of the pandemic seek to impose on us. Perhaps they haven’t yet fully grasped the implications of their Grand Ambitions. But they smell a rat! They don’t really need the test results back from forensics to know there are carp in the cornflakes!

These are the people who are as yet undecided about what to do, which direction to head, how to respond. My belief is that this group far outweighs those “trusters”. If we can connect with them, we’re in with more than a half a chance. And we have to make a supreme effort to draw them into the fold.

To Those who Stand Tall in the Saddle (We Salute You)

Although this is directed to all, I wish to impart a special message to (and about) those people who have either lost their jobs or are at risk of losing them because you are taking a stand against this #NewNormal nonsense. Those in particular who’ve resigned rather than slip into the submissive void of that aforementioned tyranny earn my deep admiration and gratitude. We know many of them. There are many more we don’t know I suspect.

In particular, those countless folks in the medical and healthcare professions and the broader scientific community are to be greatly admired for the stand they have taken against the Big Machine of their respective bureaucracies. New ones are emerging each day. In their case it is the medical, academic, and public health bureaucracy; as we’ll see shortly, in my case it was the education bureaucracy. Same horse, different cowboy!

There’s no difference between these bureaucratic entities when it comes down to the wire. They are ruled by heartless, faceless, soulless, gutless facsimiles of real people. They spend most of their working and waking hours getting high on their own supply, kowtowing to their fly-by-night political masters when beckoned like ‘cap-in-hand’ courtiers in the courts of medieval kings, whilst building on the QT their own private little fiefdoms, their exclusive empires of enmity. They have consistently demonstrated they haven’t a ‘skerrick’ of interest in our health, safety, security, welfare, well-being, or in that of our families or our communities. Or our country! They are Quislings! Judas Goats! Traitors! Declarations I don’t make lightly.

They ‘mos def’ have no interest in anything remotely resembling democracy, freedom, the rule of law, or adhering to the spirit or letter of our Constitution or our basic civil and human rights. These bureaucrats as a rule are a mutant sub-species all unto their own! They have above all, no integrity, no empathy, no credibility. They treat us with disdain, with contempt, with malice aforethought! We should return the favour in spades.

These people are bought and paid for; they have sold whatever passed for a soul to that tiny, malevolent cabal of obscenely rich and insanely powerful people who, unseen and largely incognito, truly run this world in which we live. If you truly believe otherwise, a check-up from the neck-up might be in order! At no previous point in our history of which I am aware has all this ever been more obvious, more plain to see.

Notwithstanding the propaganda and the censorship to which we’re constantly being bombarded, such insight has never been more easily or readily confirmed by those who do wish to discover for themselves what we’re up against, who’s really leading the frontal assault on everything we hold dear, what their grand, nefarious ambitions are. The only way I see they can prevent this awakening is for them to shut down the internet (it’s on the cards), and herd us all into their internment camps. Which in case you haven’t been looking, they’re real, they’re up, and they’re operational!

As a former teacher of history, I can safely say all this. For that matter, as a former teacher of the only subject that really matters, I can just as safely say virtually everything I taught my students over the years is bollocks! Though I didn’t come to this realisation until well after I pulled up stumps as it were, yet still well before Covid reared its ugly head.

The emergence of this global pandemic ‘economy’—the Covid Thing—has brought this harsh reality into sharp, fearful focus, for all but the most blind, the most ignorant, the most arrogant, the most insular of people to see. To those people I say this to you: your Mr McGoo-like myopia is our dystopia in the making!…’

And to those who have either lost their jobs or are at risk of losing their jobs because you are taking a stand against this tyranny, I know what you’re going through. I get this, I truly do. As hinted earlier, for years I worked for the WA public education department. As an internal whistleblower, I fought numerous battles up the food chain to the highest level against the soulless, faceless, heartless, corrupt, morally bankrupt, and capricious bureaucracy. Now’s not the time for a blow by blow. No names, no pack-drill. No chapter and verse.

Suffice to say this: I fought hard against their hypocrisy, the misuse and abuse of power, their bullying, intimidation and their harassment, their arrogance, their double standards, their presumed—yet ultimately inflated—sense of privilege. At first they ignored me. Then they closed ranks. They engaged in gaslighting, false accusation, character assassination. That’s what they do! And when that didn’t work, they eventually brought the power of the Big Machine of the Bureaucracy to bear on my ass and got rid of me.

In the end I never had a chance. In doing so, they took away my right and my ability to earn my living, my livelihood. The cost was considerable. As a contractor, there was no right of appeal. Any legal remedy was out of the question. The cost of pursuing such would’ve only aggravated the situation for me personally and financially. Success, in any event, was far from assured. I moved on. This explains why I so admire greatly people like Craig Backman and Krystle Mitchell, the two former Victorian police officers who resigned rather than slip into what I call the ‘submissive void’.

Why did I go up against the Big Machine? Why didn’t I just go along to get along? Why didn’t I just suck it up, cop it sweet, keep my trap shut! I did for awhile. But that got to me in the end. See, I despise bullies, liars and hypocrites! I detest those who with supreme arrogance misuse and abuse their power and authority. I reserve a special contempt for those in public office who abuse the privileges and the prerogatives we invest in them.

I particularly detest politicians and bureaucrats who wield power over our daily lives in ways imaginable and unimaginable, seen and unseen, blithely evading at every turn both transparency and accountability. Their sense of entitlement knows few bounds.

Where is all this heading? There’s only one end-point to where this can go if we allow it. It will lead to a destination that almost certainly will not be to our liking nor to our individual or collective benefit. To the extent they’ll even have the freedom to reflect on such, it will leave our descendants wondering why we let it get to this point. And despairing—with a mixture of outrage, fear, and anxiety—at our stupidity, our ignorance, [and] our complacency in doing so. That in essence my friends, is the “end-point”. A barren, heartless, lonely, mindless, soul-crushing, passionless, submissive void.

In summing up, there’s a wonderful meme doing the rounds at the moment. Some of you may have seen it. It goes like this: ‘The time will soon come when every single person who has remained silent will be forced to do one of two things. Get loud and resist. Or stay silent and comply.’ Before we can “get loud and resist”, we have to be able to handle the whole truth, and nothin’ but.

Can we handle the truth? Yes! I believe we can handle the truth! We do not have any other choice! The truth once embraced becomes then our sword, our armour, our shield. To be used defiantly against the Big Lie and those who would perpetrate and perpetuate it. Wield it with precision. With conviction. With valour. As if your life depended on it. It does my friends, it really does.

The following is perhaps a fitting coda. An anonymous person posted this on social media recently:

‘For all the ignorance in the world, we are still a curious species. I have no doubt that many who still have a wall of resistance up, know that something doesn’t look/feel right about all this…and they are paying attention. Keep shining the light you beautiful people!’

For some reason I liked that!…

It is said, ‘curiosity killed the cat, [and] information brought him back’. But a bit more of both—“curiosity” and “information”—might also kill the power and the presumed prerogatives of those who are forcing us to take the poison in it! Because if we don’t, there’ll be more poison to follow. Of that we can be sure! These people don’t give up without a fight. In case you haven’t noticed, they fight dirty!

Amen to that truth pilgrims! Amen I say to all that!

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Robert Kennedy Interviewed by Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson Today – 11/15/21

December 2, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 1 Comment