Aletho News


DOJ will not withdraw controversial memo on targeting school parents


Nearly three months after the controversy over the FBI targeting school parents as possible domestic terrorists, Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have gotten a reply from the Dept. of Justice.

They say the response falls far short of what’s necessary.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced this week that he received a reply. He stated the following:

“[I]n December we asked why the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division was getting involved in parents expressing their concerns at school board meetings. Now, just to be crystal clear, there’s no excuse for real threats or acts of violence at school board meetings, but if there are such threats, these should be handled at the local level and the Attorney General should withdraw his memo that started this whole thing.

“Well, a couple days before Christmas, the Justice Department responded to us with just a one-page letter.

“In that letter, DOJ had nothing to say about why the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division was involved in local school-board matters. DOJ just said, ‘We’re not going to withdraw the memo.’ So, the Feds may be keeping track of school board meetings—even if it creates a horrible chilling effect. And, of course the FBI looking over your shoulder would have a chilling effect. Next week the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on domestic terrorism. I hope we’re going to be focusing on the serious threats facing our country—and I hope no one thinks the focus is on our nation’s parents.”

Grassley then made a public statement on the matter:

The Department of Justice owes the American people a better answer than just a one-page letter that says nothing about why the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division is involved in local school-board matters. Now more than ever, parents should be their kids’ strongest and best advocates. They have the God-given right to do so. And the Justice Department ought to be doing everything it can to protect that right, not scare them out of exercising that right. Attorney General Garland should withdraw his memo. And he should take Congress’s oversight, and concern for the rights of parents, more seriously.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

By way of background, on Monday, October 4, US Attorney General Merrick Garland sent out a memorandum directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the US Attorneys’ Offices to meet in the next 30 days with federal, state, Tribal, territorial and local law enforcement leaders to discuss strategies for addressing the disturbing trend in the nation’s public schools.

Garland cited an increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools. And, as evidence, he quoted a letter of concern from the National School Boards Association.

But once the controversy became public, it was revealed that Biden administration officials solicited the letter of concern from the School Board group and then pretended to have received it organically. Later, officials from the National School Boards Association indicated they felt the letter, which was not authorized by the entire group, was inappropriate.

In response to Garland’s memo, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 7, demanding the agency not interfere with local school board meetings or threaten the use of federal law enforcement to dissuade parents’ free speech.

“We are concerned about the appearance of the Department of Justice policing the speech of citizens and concerned parents. We urge you to make very clear to the American public that the Department of Justice will not interfere with the rights of parents to come before school boards and speak with educators about their concerns, whether regarding coronavirus-related measures, the teaching of critical race theory in schools, sexually explicit books in schools, or any other topic” 

“To be clear, violence and true threats of violence are not protected speech and have no place in the public discourse of a democracy… However, the FBI should not be involved in quashing and criminalizing discourse that is well beneath violent acts… It is not appropriate to use the awesome powers of the federal government – including the PATRIOT Act, a statute designed to thwart international terrorism – to quash those who question local school boards.”

Republican Senators of Senate Judiciary Committee

After the letter was sent to the Justice Department, Republican Senators were alerted to information from an FBI whistleblower, showing an internal DOJ email illustrating that the FBI’s Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions had created a threat tag titled “EDUOFFICIALS” as a means to track “instances of related threats” about school administrators, school board members, teachers, and staff.

In light of this new revelation, the senators drafted another letter to Attorney General Garland demanding he withdraw the October 4 memorandum and explicitly state that concerned parents will not be treated as domestic terrorists and will not be targeted for exercising their First Amendment Rights.

In their follow-up letter dated December 6, Republican Senate Judiciary Members wrote:

“Parents and other citizens who get impassioned at school-board meetings are not domestic terrorists. You may believe that, but too many people involved in this issue seem to think harsh words can be criminalized. Getting the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division involved in the matter only makes this worse—dramatically worse.”

Republican Senators of Senate Judiciary Committee

Links to all letters and remarks below:

Attorney General’s Oct 4 memorandum

Senate Judiciary Oct 7 letter

Senate Judiciary Dec 6 letter

DOJ Response

Senator Grassley’s remarks

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 1 Comment

The Global Disinformation Campaign Against Ivermectin in COVID-19 (Part I)

By Pierre Kory | January 6, 2022

Ivermectin, a decades-old, off-patent drug costing pennies to make, with an unparalleled safety profile and numerous manufacturers across the world, actually sits atop one of the largest and strongest clinical trials evidence base in history. The existing, massive amount of clinical trials data shows immense efficacy against COVID-19 in all its phases; prevention, early and late treatment, and long-haul syndrome (no actual trials in long-haul but rather extensive positive clinical experiences). Despite this inarguable (yes, inarguable) supportive evidence, no major Western or international health agency has recommended its use in COVID-19. Conversely, ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 23 “less developed” countries (39 if you include non-government medical organizations), and which include about 25% of the world’s population.

Now, before we delve deeper into the workings of the most heinous disinformation campaign ever waged by the pharmaceutical industry in history (and also it’s most successful so far as 75% of the earth’s inhabitants still have not been recommended to use it to treat COVID), I will ask you not to just “take my word for it” but instead take you on a brief, guided tour of the insanely positive evidence base supporting the use of ivermectin in COVID-19.

Let’s go. First, the below “Forest Plot” was compiled by the anonymous expert research group at (not enough can be said of the impact their meticulous work has had on COVID clinicians and scientists across the globe). Please visit their site, it is mind-blowingly impressive. The compounds listed in the rows represent the medicines with the most clinical trials evidence as of today, either by size or by number and are listed in order of potency against COVID.

Here is how to read and understand a Forest Plot: there is a thin grey line in the center, on either side of which are plotted squares which represent an estimate of the true size of the “treatment effect,” derived from an average of the treatment effects measured from all the trials performed of that medicine. If the box is squarely on the vertical line it means it is a treatment whose benefits have been found equal to its harms. In the above list, (with the exception of one) medicines with “positive” treatment effects are listed, meaning the benefits of treatment with these agents outweigh any potential or actual harms. No medicine on the list above, besides convalescent plasma (CP), indicates it is inferior to placebo (note that CP was the initial favored therapy of every single academic medical center in the U.S despite the fact CP has only ever been shown to be effective in hematogenous infections). In cases, such as with CP, due to the fact it’s harms outweigh it’s benefits, the box is plotted on the right side of the line and shaded in red. Conversely, the farther to the left of the vertical line that a box is plotted, the larger the measured impact on the clinical outcome tested. Green boxes indicate the effect estimate is based on at least 4 trials. Grey boxes and greyed out medicine names mean the estimate for that medicine is based on fewer than 4 trials. The thin horizontal line through each little box indicates the degree of precision, i.e. how confident we can be in the estimate of the treatment effect – narrow horizontal lines through the boxes mean the data in support is large and consistently positive and is “statistically significant” in favor of the medicine. The wider the line, the less consistent, or less amount of data can be relied upon to make the estimate. When the horizontal line through a box extends across the vertical gray line, this indicates that it is statistically possible that the true estimate may actually be in favor of placebo!

With ivermectin, what sets it apart from all the other compounds tested, is the sheer number of randomized and observational controlled trials that have been performed to date. It is #1 among the “green box” compounds given it has been tested in 73 controlled trials which include an unheard-of 56,804 patients. Why unheard of? Because never in history has a medicine been so thoroughly tested, with such consistent positive results, yet led to a situation where governmental agencies in highly developed countries call for even more placebo-controlled trials to be done… and then slow walk to doing them. The ethics of giving a covid patient a placebo given this amount of supportive data are too miserable to contemplate this early in the article (fun fact – I was personally asked to try to help recruit patients for the ongoing University of Minnesota placebo controlled RCT. I got off the phone as fast as I could). Another not-so-fun fact: penicillin was mass deployed to great effect to all our troops for their battlefield injuries in World War II… based on a case series of 157 patients where their bacterial infections overtly resolved without signs of toxicity during treatment. Not one RCT was done before this decision was made by military and medical leaders.

The only other medicine with a larger supportive evidence base is hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), especially when only the early treatment trials of HCQ are considered as that collection of trials results in an equally impressive position on the Forest plot (not shown). A tired topic I will explore later is the much parroted (and highly favored by Pharma) notion that “retrospective, observational controlled trials (OCT)” cannot be trusted as they are inferior to “proper, large, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials (RCT).” This notion is not evidence based. Even the captured (I know, sorry) Cochrane Library knows this. They themselves have shown that, on average, over thousands of clinical trials, over decades of research, OCT’s and RCT’s reach the same conclusions. So stop with the false dichotomy. Pharma wants you to only trust in “large RCT’s”… because they are the only ones with the cash to do them. That way, they can control the only medicines that get “proven” and thus adopted into guidelines.

Two absurdities (crimes) must be highlighted in the above diagram – one is the sheer number of medicines with demonstrated efficacy, most costing under $5 a dose (and almost all with unparalleled safety profiles and/or “over the counter” status) that are still not recommended by any U.S or “western” health agency (with the exception of the state of Florida since the hire of Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo who has put together a terrific public health campaign supporting the use of a combination early treatment protocol which includes another FLCCC adopted drug, fluvoxamine).

Meanwhile our federal governmental health agencies, which I have argued repeatedly (and will for years until it stops) are so completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry that they have not advocated for any one of these “repurposed” compounds, even as a “precautionary principle” (meaning that even if the purported benefits may not be realized to the extent estimated, the risks are so small it is more likely best for all we employ them now in early treatment given the world is cratering). Their most unforgivable and absurd inaction is the deliberate ignoring of the critical role of Vitamin D in protecting against the worst outcomes of COVID, despite knowing full well significant portions of the U.S population is Vitamin D deficient. Even Anthony Fauci recommends to himself that he take Vitamin D… regularly. The data below was given to me by a Dr. Henele and is from work he published in 2016. Note the percent of the U.S population that is critically deficient in Vitamin D.

The second absurdity is found when looking at the plot with only the medicines recommended in the NIH’s COVID protocol circled. Note that the NIH protocol is adhered to by almost the entirety of the country’s hospitals (largely due to large add-on bonuses paid to hospitals when the protocol elements are used – I am not making this up). A “theme” should begin to emerge as you look at the circled, “recommended” medicines vs the non-circled, “non-recommended” medicines – every single one is massively expensive. Every single one. Note not one inexpensive drug is circled. How much more evidence do you need to prove that our agencies have been completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry?

Fun fact now that you are en expert in reading Forest Plot’s: Merck’s mutagenic new drug molnupiravir, after the highly positive results from their study’s “interim analysis,” published in a press release, instead found that, in the 2nd half of its one study, the data favored… placebo. Thus if the 2nd half was a stand-alone study (which it arguably could have been) it’s box would be firmly on the right side of the line. FDA still approved… while feigning concern. Unsurprising really.

Now, beyond the above 73 controlled trials supporting ivermectin, there are, in addition, numerous health ministries from around the world that deployed ivermectin in either the prevention or early treatment of COVID, among often very large populations. Each program’s report found that ivermectin use led to massive reductions in the need for hospitalization and/or death (Mexico CityUttar PradeshBrazilMisionesLa Pampas, PeruPhillipines, and Japan – I will do a deeper dive on these in a later post). The program in the city of Itajai, Brazil is both the largest study of ivermectin in the world (data from nearly 200,000 patients was carefully collected over a 6 month period) and most impressive. They found that, despite the fact that the 120,000 patients who agreed to take ivermectin every 15 days were older, fatter, and sicker than the approximately 37,000 that did not… they went to hospital 67% less frequently, and died 70% less frequently… from all causes, not just COVID. The issue with ivermectin as a therapeutic in COVID… has NOTHING to do with the science.

The issue with ivermectin is simply it’s price – it costs less than a $1 and represents the biggest threat to the immense and future profits of the pharmaceutical industry’s novel oral anti-viral drugs… as well as their vaccines.

The previous title holder of the largest threat to Pharma profits in COVID was the highly effective (and also anti-viral) drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). However, it lost that title after the 2020 war on HCQ was essentially won by Pharma (for now?), using tactics so sinister as to be unimaginable, and which I will not review here as that macabre war has already been expertly reviewed in incredible and highly referenced detail in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His book, in my opinion, is a must read for all the globe’s citizens, as without it, no coherent understanding of the innumerable non-scientific actions and policies across the entirety of the developed (and majority of the undeveloped) world can be gained.

I must emphasize that ivermectin is just the latest drug under attack during Pharma’s long-standing (and highly successful) war on off-patent, “no-longer-obscenely-profitable” medicines. Books have been written about the numerous, and often criminal actions that Big Pharma has employed to replace older off-patent medicines with newer, highly profitable, and often poorly tested drugs with either prospectively known dangers or quickly discovered dangers which they then criminally suppress or distort to preserve profits. When science supporting older, off-patent, often “repurposed” medicines (particularly in the lucrative environment of a global pandemic) becomes “inconvenient” to the financial promise of newer agents, the industry employs what are called “Disinformation” tactics, first invented and perfected by the Tobacco Industry, and now used to great effect by the Pharmaceutical (and many other) industries. These tactics are brilliantly and succinctly summarized in an article called The Disinformation Playbook written by The Union for Concerned Scientists. I encourage all to read. The 5 main “plays” from the playbook are listed below. If you are at all versed in the ivermectin in COVID saga (many FLCCC followers are), it should be easy to quickly come up with numerous examples of each nefarious tactic. I give some hints below…

1) The “Fake”: Conduct counterfeit science and try to pass it off as legitimate research (Dr. Andrew Hill)

2) The “Blitz”: Harass scientists who speak out with results or views inconvenient for industry (attacks on FLCCC founders)

3) The “Diversion”: Manufacture uncertainty about science where little or none exists (Dr. Andrew Hill/captured high-impact journals)

4) The “Screen”: Buy credibility through alliances with academia or professional societies (i.e. high impact medical journal influences)

5) The “Fix”: Manipulate government officials or processes to inappropriately influence policy (i.e. capture the health agencies by creating “revolving doors” between Pharma and government to ensure total synchrony in objectives amongst their leaders)

Given the Disinformation Playbook was last updated in 2018, it does not include newer, more nefarious tactics that industries have been able to deploy since the historic consolidation of financial power by just 3 multi-trillion dollar investment funds (Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard). These three corporations have now acquired influential or outright controlling investment stakes in nearly every major corporation in nearly every industry. These investment managers power, particularly the power held synchronously over media companies, social media companies, and the near entirety of the pharmaceutical industry, has allowed even more fearsome tactics to be used in the near-global suppression of the efficacy of ivermectin (and HCQ) as they now:

1) CENSOR any mentions of supportive evidence in corporate, (a.k.a. “legacy”) media. Note that, besides the influence of these investment manager overlords, the global censoring ability of media was greatly helped by the “Trusted News Initiative (TNI),” an obscene (and either naively misguided or completely corrupt) effort by the most powerful journalism organizations in the world to band together to try to control the spread of “mis-information”. Yes, professional journalists decided they needed to control information in a pandemic. I am not making this up. Would an appropriate analogy be that a bunch of physician leaders decided they needed to spread disease in a pandemic?

2) CENSOR any mentions or discussions of efficacy on almost all social media – see explicit youtube “community” policy below as the most unsubtle example:


3) RETRACT positive papers from impactful medical journals (3 fully peer-reviewed and highly supportive scientific reviews of ivermectin have been retracted, either immediately prior to or post-publication (I was the lead author on the first one with my FLCCC colleagues)

4) BLOCK review and publication of positive trials of ivermectin in major medical journals (in my now global network of ivermectin-expert and/or ivermectin study investigator colleagues, all lament how their positive clinical trials or papers were rejected for review from all the high-impact (captured) journals, with Dr. Eli Schwartz’s highly sophisticated, expertly conducted, and immensely positive study from Israel being one of the most illustrative examples

5) PUBLISH numerous “hit pieces” within high profile print media outlets discrediting the science and/or the scientists who support the medicine. This is actually an example of the already described “Blitz” tactic, but in 2021, during COVID, using total media control, it was deployed by a division of Howitzers. A more recent and relatable example of “the Diversion” tactic was when the NFL used media hit pieces to go after the scientists (and their inconvenient science) after they began publishing and disseminating data about the high rates and disastrous impacts of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in retired NFL players.

What I have found fascinating, is that for every planted hit piece article discrediting the mountain of evidence supporting ivermectin as a therapeutic, the FLCCC is actually rarely mentioned. But why? I think it is because the FLCCC is a sizeable group of highly published physicians and researchers (Professor Paul Marik is actually the most published practicing ICU physician in the history of the specialty). Thus, it’s hard (but not impossible) to call us “fringe.” The last thing they want to do is call attention to our high degree of credibility. Instead they seem to be trying to destroy it using separate hit pieces (among other tactics) which has led to the recent loss of employment for three founding FLCCC members (Drs. Marik, Meduri, and yours truly have been forced to leave jobs or had their exemplary clinical and research careers ended (Drs. Marik and Meduri). An article on ivermectin that does not mention our organization does so purposefully so as not to give attention to credible support for its use given we are considered the foremost clinical experts on the clinical use of ivermectin in COVID in the world.

6) employ a coordinated media-government agency PROPAGANDA campaign;

August 26th, 2021: Pharma used their CDC to send out a “health advisory” to all 50 state Departments of Health, which they then sent to all the physicians licensed in their respective states (a terrifying example of the immense destructive power of a federal agency captured by pharmaceutical industry interests). The bulletin both;

1) depicted ivermectin as a dangerous drug by deliberately exaggerating reports of calls to poison control centers

2) cited the meaningless fact that it “is not FDA approved for COVID” as a reason it should not be used, hoping doctors may not realize that “off-label” prescribing is both legal and encouraged… by the FDA.

Next, a quickly debunked (not quickly enough) planted media article in Rolling Stone appeared with an impressively click-bait-able headline describing emergency rooms so overflowing with ivermectin overdoses that our nation’s gunshot victims couldn’t get (obviously) needed care (even I clicked on it). The article then went viral across the world (thousands of media mentions) before the hospital could put out a statement saying it was 100% false. Gee, do you think Pharma hired a professional PR firm to pull that one off or did they just benefit from a serendipitous and lamentably lazy journalist’s error?

Then, in another terrifying example of the control of major corporate media… for week after week every news broadcaster, pundit, and late-night talk show host prefaced the word ivermectin with the descriptor “horse de-wormer.” Over and over and over again (totally pissing off Joe Rogan who recovered from COVID with ivermectin as part of his combination protocol- hah!)

Then finally, in a coup de grace, in comes Pharma’s FDA proudly using twitter to associate ivermectin with, you guessed it, horses. Janet Woodcock, the acting Commissioner of the FDA, even sent out a congratulatory email to her team about the success of the tweet.

Was this a coordinated attack led by an expert team of brazen PR professionals who have a fondness for horses… or did it arise organically via a series of disconnected events?

If you are still not convinced of the former, I need to point out that this “series of disconnected events” had an uncanny sense of when to “roll-out.” The CDC’s Health Advisory was issued on August 26th. Look at the below chart and see if you can find any reason why it would start then? Recall that the advisory was ostensibly in reaction to false “reports of calls to poison control centers”. The below chart shows instead what was really going on at the time – hundreds, if not thousands of licensed medical professionals across the country were prescribing ivermectin like mad during the terrible, and deadly summer surge of the Delta variant. Was someone getting nervous that a “dirty little secret” was being rapidly discovered by American citizens and physicians? The answer is a definitive yes – thus triggering Pharma to nefariously try to “stuff the genie back in the bottle” by unleashing their terrifying disinformation propaganda campaign.


But check this out… the good ole’ FLCCC, my little band of brothers and sisters, is somehow making a opening in the wall of information suppression and distortion as shown in the chart below (compiled by our data analyst and ivermectin expert, Juan Chamie). I say this makes us “the Bad News Bears” in the repurposed drug war.

I am going to stop here… and call it PART I. Please subscribe below so you can be sure to get Part II where I will continue to detail the numerous and wide-ranging corrupt actions taken to suppress the knowledge of efficacy and restrict the use of ivermectin… across the world. There is way way more to this story.

Also, please be aware of the following events:

World-wide Rally for Freedom Day

Join us for a march in DC on defeating the mandate and to march in support of our international colleagues- who are also rallying on this day: Sunday January 23rd. 

United we stand, in peace we watch. Bring friends and jackets.

Go to for details

Finally, I am honored to have been invited by Dr. Chris Martenson and Peak Prosperity to their Annual Seminar as part of a speaker panel including some powerhouse thought leaders. Don’t miss it folks. Register using this link:

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | 1 Comment

The Tyranny of the Risk Averse

By Nick Comilla | The Daily Sceptic | January 9, 2022

Confusing being mortal with being threatened can occur in any realm. The fact that something could go wrong does not mean that we are in danger. It means we are alive. Mortality is the sign of life … Experiencing anxiety does not mean that anyone is doing anything to us that is unjust.

Sarah Schulman, Conflict is Not Abuse

The subject of this essay is the question of whether people and governments are overreacting to the threat of Covid – yes, obviously – and what the psychological motivations are for that overreaction.

Before discussing that, it’s important to define some terms and deal with some possible objections. By overreaction, I mean things like ongoing restrictions, lockdowns, curfews, mask mandates, etc. For instance, in Quebec, which has one of the highest vaccination rates in the entire world, they are going into a second curfew with restrictions that are more stringent than the first lockdowns. They are the only area in North America to enforce a literal government ‘curfew’ to try and (once again) slow the spread of the virus. People are not allowed to leave their homes after 10pm – not even to walk their dogs. The reasoning for this – which seems to be one of two justifications left for people who are in favour of restrictions – is the idea that we need to resort to restrictions whenever there is a ‘rise in cases’ in order to ‘free up hospital capacity’. The other remaining justification for restrictions is the view that the mitigation of Covid is essentially a social responsibility, and that measures should be in place that impact everyone so that the most vulnerable won’t contract the virus – namely, the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions.

These justifications don’t hold water for various reasons. At best, they’re delusional, at worst – as this essay will argue – they’re hysterical and harmful. The alignment between public hysteria and public policy is an example of what Sarah Schulman in her book Conflict is Not Abuse calls “the state’s protective machine [becoming] an additional tool of harassment”. Even when proven wrong, the most hysterical among us will double-down by deferring to ever-changing public policy to justify their positions, thus creating a feedback loop. After two years, it should no longer be news that Covid does not pose as serious a threat to most people as previously believed.

In December 2020, 35% of Americans believed that half of the people with COVID-19 required hospitalization. The correct figure was 1%-5%. Americans also estimated that the share of COVID-19 deaths for people between 18 and 24 was 8%. It was actually 0.1%. These incorrect assumptions were influenced by anecdotes, shocking media coverage, and early projections like the influential Imperial College model, which predicted that without lockdowns there would be 40 million COVID-19 deaths worldwide. The model assumed an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.9%, but the actual IFR of COVID-19 is 0.15% and the median IFR for people under 70 is 0.05%. … While the CDC projected a one-year decrease in life expectancy for the U.S. population, the overall decrease in life expectancy was only five days, and the U.S.’s excess mortality in 2017 was greater than its [Covid] mortality in 2020.

Once the argument about overall risk collapses, the narrative shifts to ICU capacity. But even before Covid, it was not unusual for ICU’s to run at 80-90% capacity. A more logical approach would be to expand ICU capacity, rather than hold the rest of society hostage as if daily life is beholden to ICU capacity. Even during the initial wave, expanded capacity initiatives like field hospitals and the Comfort ship were sent away early while cautious restrictions remained in place. Part of moving on to an endemic perspective is accepting that expanded capacity will sometimes be needed, and that we ought to adjust to that reality, rather than to the idea that we interrupt normal life whenever cases rise. Putting an entire province on curfew and closing indoor dining and bars, for example, seems disproportionately cruel and nonsensical when nurses are still allowed to work with Covid and we’ve shortened isolation periods because we’re finally recognising human impact. Either we’re in a singular emergency or we’re not: you can’t expect people to suddenly ‘play emergency’ because of rising ICU occupancy.

As for protecting the elderly, aside from the reality that it’s been two years and vaccines are widely available, there is a significant and growing body of evidence that mitigation attempts and the consequences of them result in more life years lost than gained. We can’t afford to press an emergency brake on society every time ICUs near capacity limitations, or every time more people over the age of 80 die, because the consequences of these never-ending mitigation measures on society at large are dire and exponentially worse. Being neurotically hyper-focused on one issue is blinding us to all the adverse consequences of trying to mitigate that issue. Lockdowns and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Wherever you look – increased domestic and child abuse, deteriorating mental health, an increase in drug overdoses – every segment of society is suffering long term damage from the hysteria of the past two years. Children have lost nearly two years of learning and normal educational developmental trajectories. Loss of income and businesses lead to deaths of despair. It isn’t selfish to say we can’t afford to do this. Those concerned with trying to mitigate harm to the elderly need to come up with ways to do so that don’t cause lasting and profound damage to everyone else.

The impulse to ignore all of the evidence and to continue to singularly obsess over Covid and insinuate that anyone seeking a return to normal is somehow abusing you or causing you harm is rooted in a trauma response wherein people cannot differentiate between conflict and abuse.

Last winter, a familiar refrain I noticed in New York amongst myself and many others was “stay safe”. It became the new “have a good night”, it was instinctual and communal. I even started saying it without realising it. It is meant as a compassionate slogan, but it’s also an imperative. You’re being told to do something: stay safe, which suggests the possibility of danger or threat. But why were we suddenly all saying that to each other? I chalked it up to the strangeness of those times: a new ‘Covid wave’, extreme uncertainty, the city still felt emptied out, and crime was up. “Stay safe” and the little things we could do for each other were like linguistic pacifiers, offering us a reprieve from the endless media reminder that we were in ‘unprecedented’ and ‘uncertain times’ and that, despite this, we were ‘all in this together‘.

I started to think about the other phrases that encapsulate an overabundance of caution which masquerades as compassion. And at what point does overemphasising caution become its own form of harassment? Certainly, we are seeing rising incidents of shunning and neuroticism since the start of the pandemic. These are notions favoured by the laptop-class: people who want to live in March 2020 in perpetuity, clamouring for more lockdowns and ‘stimulus’. Some people in the United States seem convinced – quite literally – that they are going to die. This is a problem. They perceive themselves as being in great danger when they aren’t, and view others as a threat in an overstated way. This is dangerous. I noticed that they also seem to take a strange sort of glee in telling others what to do – adult hallway monitors run amok. There was something fundamentally pathological about the sheer pleasure people – usually women and men who seemed off the deep end into over-socialisation – took in events being cancelled for ‘the greater good’. When LCD Soundsystem announced, due to public pressure, that they were abruptly cancelling the last three shows of their reunion performance here in NYC everyone started talking about ‘the greater good’. Those who voiced their disappointment in various comment sections were ostracised, while those who were sanctimoniously, righteously having their ‘concern for safety’ met seemed pleased to have their virtue reaffirmed. To be clear, I don’t necessarily think they enjoy the ongoing restrictions: I think they enjoy the righteousness of their perceived sacrifice.

The chorus they kept repeating was ‘this was a tough call, but it’s the right thing to do!’ and ‘see you when it’s safe’. The issue is that for these people, it will never be safe. And they are holding the rest of us hostage in the meantime. What struck me as odd was that if anyone dared to complain about this over-zealous and overstated concept of risk, if anyone pointed out that these people were beginning to make life seriously miserable, the neurotics would double down and accuse us of that which they were guilty of: ‘Stop throwing a fit’, ‘Oh poor you, little baby, you can’t go to a concert’. Sadomasochistic glee. Anyone who has spoken out against restrictions knows that the social ostracising is rampant: you’re either accused of ‘lacking empathy’ or of actively ‘wanting people to die’. It is bizarre to me that a civil conversation can’t be entered into under the shared assumption that neither of us want people to die and that you can be simultaneously against lockdowns and in favour of reducing suffering in general. But there is a reason why traumatised people would act this way, why it’s useful for them to paint others in broad strokes, and like many insights it starts with a question, one I had recently read in Schulman’s book:

Why would a person rather have an enemy than a conversation? Why would they rather see themselves as harassed and transgressed instead of have a conversation that could reveal them as an equal participant in creating conflict? There should be a relief in discovering that one is not being persecuted, but actually, in the way we have misconstrued these responsibilities, sadly the relief is in confirming that one has been “victimised”. It comes with the relieving abdication of responsibility.

Shrieking at someone and calling them a selfish murderer is a lot easier than rational self-assessment. But voicing concern about ongoing restrictions – where does it end? – doesn’t make you selfish; it makes you human, which is where real compassion lies. It isn’t normal to take virtue or joy in the cancelling of public life, in the banning of dancing, in the destruction of any kind of collective artistic experience.

Who is the one throwing a fit? People who are rightfully angry about every aspect of their lives being disrupted for two years or the people who endlessly clamour for this to continue at every turn? Acknowledging that this was a ‘tough call but the right thing to do’ is a Kafka-trap of a phrase as it doesn’t invite any room for questioning. The sentiment presupposes its own necessity and moral superiority. It doesn’t give others any room to object, to say ‘I don’t consent’ to being overprotected. It acknowledges the difficult part – ‘tough call’ – but only to minimise or downplay it. Other phrases came to mind: for your safety and the safety of others. Out of an abundance of caution… what occurred to me was that I never asked to be kept safe. In fact, myself and many other people are quite well adapted to certain levels of risk as we were not raised in what Jonathan Haidt refers to as ‘antifragile’ environments. The cancelled concert in question, by the way, required proof of vaccination to enter and if you felt so inclined, you could of course wear a mask while you were there. What’s more, it’s hard to imagine that the average age of attendance was much higher than 35. These cancellations came during the onslaught of the Omicron media-panic and were followed by more cancellations and more restrictions. The concert was going to be, by all measures, as safe as it could possibly be. The alternative to cancelling it was simple enough: if you don’t feel comfortable, as with anything else, don’t attend. Problem solved.

It’s time for the public and public policymakers alike to admit that sometimes ‘an abundance of caution’ is an overabundance of caution. After these observations, I started to draw parallels between this schism in society and other areas where the same issues were arising. The first parallel can be found in Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind, which explores the rise of ‘safetyism’ on college campuses and the exponential increase of anxiety and depression that leads to a higher perception of threat and a lower tolerance for risk or conflict. Even before the pandemic, the catalyst for a hysterical response mechanism was in place. Students were construing certain words as ‘literal violence’ and cancelling events that threatened their worldview. A virus – and a media class that convinced them, falsely, that they will literally be hospitalised if they catch it and wind up on a ventilator and die – has clearly sent them over the edge.

In September, Bill Maher accurately blamed the establishment media for egging this on. He discussed polls which show how absurdly inaccurate the perception of risk regarding Covid is, with nearly half of Democrats thinking that there is a 50% or higher chance that someone with Covid will be hospitalised (the real statistical likelihood is between 1 and 5%, although for Omicron it’s considerably lower). The same poll, conducted by the NYT, showed that 70% of Democrats had an exaggerated perception of risk. In ‘blue’ cities like NYC, what this means is that anytime there’s a rise in cases, people panic – even if that rise is divorced from hospitalisation metrics, as with the Omicron wave.

I wonder if any of the people polled are aware that the leading cause of death in 2020 for people age 18-45 was fentanyl overdose, which are no doubt ‘deaths of despair’ related to ongoing social disintegration. As many who have been paying attention know, the median age of death with Covid in many places is around 83, oftentimes higher than average life expectancy. The average age of death for the Spanish flu, by comparison, was 28Obesity is the main risk factor for developing a severe case of Covid, and yet this is hardly ever discussed in the media. If the social reaction to ongoing restrictions is increased overdoses and a decay in mental health, not only are these ongoing mitigation measures bad at offering much protection to their intended target group, they’re actively harmful to the vast majority of people.

During a particularly bizarre incident last March, a group of seemingly middle-class young women began a hysterical argument with me on a street corner for not wearing a mask outside. This is when I started to understand what was going on. Data and risk didn’t matter, the extreme unlikelihood of outdoor spread didn’t matter: these women were conditioned to view me as a threat because, like many people before and after the pandemic, they are traumatised. They’re having a trauma response wherein they’ve been conditioned to be hypervigilant about what they perceive to be risks, threats and the potential for harm. And people who are acting this way, despite coming from a place of trauma themselves, are in fact propagating real harm: as the saying goes, hurt people hurt people. In Conflict is Not Abuse, Schulman explains the damage that traumatised people can inflict on others:

We react constantly through life. Breathing, noticing, thinking, swallowing, feeling, and moving are all reactions. Most reactions are not really observed because they are commensurate with their stimuli, but a triggered reaction stands out because it is out of sync with what is actually taking place. When we are triggered, we have unresolved pain from the past that is expressed in the present. The present is not seen on its own terms. The real experience of the present is denied. Although reacting to the past in the present may make sense within the triggered person’s logic system, it can have detrimental effects on those around them who are not the source of the pain being expressed, but are being punished nonetheless. They are acting in the present, but are being made accountable for past events they did not cause and cannot heal. The one being falsely blamed is also a person, and this burden may hurt their life. The person being triggered is suffering, but they often make other people suffer as well. [My emphasis.]

Understanding why people overstate harm is crucial for understanding what I will call the ‘hysterical response’. Schulman details the conflation between ‘normative conflict’ and outright abuse, as well as the appeal of victimhood for traumatised victims of past abuse. She makes a clear distinction between conflict and abuse: conflict is power struggle, abuse is power over. Conflict is mutual, whereas abuse is unilateral. Of traumatised people, she writes that they are: “… hypervigilant to see abuse and are often reacting to past offences in the present – projecting. ‘If it’s hysterical, it’s historical.’” Schulman draws a parallel between abusers and traumatised people invested in their own victimhood, writing that “when they overreact, both the supremacist and the traumatised person insist that others not resist or object to their orders. They expect complete control, but in reality they produce instability in others in the form of unnecessary pain.” The latter half of this idea resonates as well: Schulman is careful to draw a distinction between those propagating real harm versus those reacting to it. In other words, resistance to abuse is not abuse. Depending on your understanding of events or the sequence of events, she writes, you may see someone reacting to abuse – resistance – as the perpetrator, rather than the aggrieved. Quite simply, it seems to me that the Covid hysterics are taking up the mantle of victimhood and then construing any resistance to their pathology as abuse, when really it’s the opposite.

Schulman explores the danger of what happens on a community level when mere conflict is mistaken for outright abuse, when the notion of ‘harm’ is weaponised by being overstated. This creates a clear-cut dichotomy between victim and perpetrator, a dichotomy which isn’t always cut and dry. In the case of communicable diseases that are easily transmissible, for which exist adoptable preventative measures like vaccines and antibody treatments, and which present drastically different levels of risk depending on age and other factors like pre-existing conditions and body weight, the idea of ‘keeping everyone safe’ is not only impossible, but further: it’s harmful. It does more damage than good, and it almost always includes blanket measures that require force – lockdowns and the consequent social disintegration. It can no longer be considered the moral high-ground, despite the linguistic grandstanding of its proponents. Overstating the risk of harm is harmful, calling anyone questioning this ‘selfish’ after two years is its own form of selfishness. Their goal is to reify the notion that no amount of risk is tolerable, which robs you of your personal agency and decision making abilities. A false notion of collective compassion is weaponised in an attempt to infantilise everyone as being hopelessly dependent on said pseudo-compassion. It is the psychological manifestation of the hysterical mother archetype: a hypochondriac helicopter parent so neurotically insistent on keeping their child ‘safe’ that the child becomes a permanent child.

Schulman goes on to outline how shunning and marginalisation are used by people experiencing conflict who are more interested in blame than finding a resolution. These are tactics that are eerily reminiscent of the animosity towards unvaccinated people. She explores, in detail, the power of the victimhood narrative alongside the power of seeing oneself as ‘abused’ and wanting to yield that power, rather than find resolution – which is what is happening right now on a mass scale as people accuse others of being threats merely for breathing or existing, where anyone not capitulating to the whims of the distressed group is deemed an abuser. The limits of collective responsibility are being tested on a mass scale and we’re seeing what happens when collectivism and compassion-claims collide to create a Kafka-trap safety-regime that pre-supposes its own moral purity by sanctimoniously claiming to care about the greater good while harming you individually.

We need to stop privileging Covid and the hysteria around it. These are no longer merely reasonable ‘mitigation measures’ like staying inside if you feel sick. They are one-size-fits-all policy blunders that uphold the supreme importance of one issue (Covid) at the expense of all other issues: in short, this is harm reduction transformed into authoritarianism. A fundamental part of living in a free society is the ability to assume a reasonable level of personal risk and act accordingly. Government officials are not your parents and we are not their children. These measures seek to fundamentally reorganise society in ways that have never been done before. It is not logical or sensible to think that a five year-old should have to show proof of vaccination to dine indoors. The risk of contracting Covid is not so important that such extreme and radical measures are justified. Why are we reorganising every whim of public life around the fear and alleged ‘mitigation’ of this one pathogen? Again, this is where we can analyse the logic of what is truly selfish. If you are that terrified of contracting a cold, or flu, or Covid from dining inside, the onus of responsibility is on you to protect yourself in whatever way you see fit – that doesn’t include suddenly demanding that everyone, including five year olds, produce their medical records to enter a public space. That is the tyranny of the risk-adverse.

People who disagree with this position will fall back on the March 2020 line of ‘slowing the spread’ and ‘not overwhelming healthcare capacities’. But after two years, this, too, is an illogical fantasy. Public life and the ability to live your life free from the molestation of others’ fear is not contingent on hospital or ICU capacity. It never was before. We never had mandatory exercise decrees to mitigate heart disease, mandatory dieting or healthy eating to mitigate obesity. We’ve never before organised society around the theory of the butterfly effect (if I let my child go to school normally or if I go to a concert, someone in a nursing home may get sick). Never before has the containment of one threat and the prevention of hospitalisations for one single disease been the sole focus of a society upon which everything else depends, and for good reason: there are different levels of risk and risk tolerance for different groups. It’s past time to acknowledge that and act accordingly. Likewise, it’s time to acknowledge the reality that people who want a full return to normality are not being unethical. They’re not the perpetrators of any kind of abuse, they’re resisting the abuse of the traumatised hysterics. There is nothing radical about advocating a full return to normal life: it’s the hysterics who have been radicalised – the people who insist on never-ending restrictions – and they need to be, quite literally, deradicalised. It’s time to stop negotiating with hysterics and return to reason.

Nick Comilla is a New York based writer.

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Kazakhstan turns into graveyard for US diplomacy

A Pentagon-funded bio-lab near Almaty, Kazakhstan, has become focus of attention for its research on “dangerous pathogens”

The Kazakh Ministry of Health issued an innocuous disclaimer today denying social media reports about the seizure of a “military biological lab near Almaty by unidentified people.” 

According to Tass news agency, the social media had speculated that specialists in chemical protection suits were working near the lab as “a leak of dangerous pathogens” occurred. 

The carefully worded press release by the Kazakh ministry clarifies: “This is not true. The facility is being protected.” Period. 

The intriguing report highlights the tip of an iceberg which has implications for public health and holds serious geopolitical ramifications. 

Since the late 1990s, when it came to be known that the US was steadily establishing and building up partnerships in biological research with several ex-Soviet republics, Moscow has repeatedly alleged that such cooperation posed a threat to Russia. 

These biological research facilities were originally envisaged as part of the so-called Nunn-Lugar Biological Threat Reduction Program to prevent the proliferation of expertise, materials, equipment and technologies that could contribute to the development of biological weapons.

But Moscow suspected that the exact opposite was happening — in reality, the Pentagon has been sponsoring, lavishly financing and providing technical assistance to these laboratories where “under the guise of peaceful research, the US is building up its “military-biological potential.” 

In a sensational statement in October 2018, Major General Igor Kirillov, the commander of Russia’s Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense Troops went to the extent of disclosing a discernible pattern of the network of Pentagon labs being located near the borders of Russia and China.

The US-Kazakh partnership in this field dates back to 2003. Kazakhstan has been an interesting “hotspot” for infectious disease occurrence and surveillance due in part to its history, geography, and its diversity of host species. Kazakhstan has long maintained an infrastructure and tiered network for infectious disease surveillance since the time of the Tsars.  

The US-funded research projects centred on studies involving select agents including zoonoses: anthrax, plague, tularemia, highly pathogenic avian influenza, brucellosis, etc. These projects funded researchers in Kazakhstan, while project collaborators in the US and UK mentored and guided these researchers to develop and test their hypotheses. 

It has been a “win-win” arrangement. The Kazakh institute staff got trained in modern diagnostic and data management techniques, and did research work with lavish external funding, while the Pentagon obtained through such labs valuable inputs for US covert biological weapons programs with military application specifically directed against ethnic groups in Russia and China. 

The unassumingly-named Central Reference Laboratory (CRL) in Almaty figuring in the Tass report was originally planned in 2013 with the US investing $102 million in a biosecurity lab to study some of the most deadly pathogens that could potentially be used in bioterrorism attacks. 

Rather than locating the new facility in some obsecure tract of land in Nevada, the Pentagon deliberately chose a site near Almaty to securely store and study the highest-risk diseases such as plague, anthrax and cholera. 

The rationale was that the lab would provide gainful employment to talented Kazakh researchers and get them off the streets, so to speak — that is, discourage them from selling their scientific expertise and services to terrorist groups who may have use for biological weapons! 

But the CRL, now operational, is anchored on institutional cooperation between Kazakh government and the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency under the the Pentagon, which is tasked with protecting “US National Security interests in a rapidly evolving, globalised threat environment to enable a greater understanding of our adversaries and provide solutions to WMD threats in an era of Great Power Competition.” 

By the way, Germany also has a similar arrangement under the rubric German-Kazakh Network for Biosafety and Biosecurity, which is co-managed by the Bundeswehr Institute of Microbiology (a military research facility of the German Armed Forces for Medical Biological Defence.) 

Why is Kazakhstan a sought-after partner? Simply put, the country provides unique access to ethnic Russian and Chinese groups as “specimen” for conducting field research involving highly pathogenic, potential biological warfare agents. Kazakhstan has 13,364 km of borders with its neighbouring countries Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. 

Is China indifferent to all this? Far from it. Beijing Review featured a report sourced from BBC Monitoring in 2020 conveying China’s concerns in the matter. As recently as in November last year, a Russian commentator wrote that these bio-labs are virtual Pentagon bases and demanded an international  inquiry. He highlighted that the Kazakh ministry of education and science “now works mainly on Pentagon research programmes.”

How could Kazakhstan, a CSTO member country, have got away with such conduct? This needs some explaining. 

Paradoxically, these biological labs are living examples of something sinister that has been going on which everyone knew and no one wanted to talk about — namely, the extensive penetration of the decadent Kazakh ruling elites by the US intelligence.

This penetration has been going on for years but significantly deepened as the 81-year old former president Nurusultan Nazarbayev’s “hands-on” leadership began to loosen and his family members and cronies increasingly began moonlighting (under the patriarch’s benevolent gaze, of course) — something akin to Yeltsin years in Russia. 

Sadly, it is a familiar story. The Kazakh elites are notoriously corrupt even by Central Asian standards and the parasitic elites have preferred to keep their loot in safe havens in the western world . Unsurprisingly, they are hopelessly compromised to the US intelligence. It’s as simple as that. 

Most certainly, Moscow sensed that popular disaffection was building up and the ground beneath the feet of Nazarbayev, a close friend of Putin, was shifting. But it did not — or more likely, would not — interfere since the US was operating through powerful comprador elements who happened to be the ageing patriarch’s family members and associates.

Given the clan affiliations in that part of the world, Moscow probably felt it prudent to keep its counsel to itself. An added factor would have been the fear that the US might manipulate the ultra-nationalist forces (as happened in Ukraine) to inflict harm on the vulnerable 3.5 million ethnic Russian minority (18% of the population.) 

Above all, the fact of the matter is that Nazarbayev cronies held the levers of state power, especially over the security apparatus, which gave Washington a decisive edge. 

But things have dramatically changed this past week. Nazarbayev may still have some residual influence but not good enough to rescue the elite who subserved US interests. President Tokayev, a low-profile career diplomat by profession, is finally coming on his own. 

Two of Tokayev’s decisive moves have been the replacement of Nazarbayev as the head of the National Security Council and the dismissal of the country’s powerful intelligence chief Karim Masimov (who has since been arrested along with other unidentified suspects as part of a probe into “high treason.”) 

Indeed, Washington has much to worry about because, at the end of the day, Kazakhstan remains an unfinished business unless and until a colour revolution can bring about regime change and install a pro-West ruler in power, as in Ukraine. The current turbulence signified an abortive attempt at colour revolution, which boomeranged.

Unlike in Afghanistan, the CIA and Pentagon are not in a position to “evacuate” their collaborators. And the torrential flow of events has shocked the Washington establishment. Kazakhstan is a large country (two-thirds the size of India) and sparsely populated (18 million), and the CSTO forces who moved in are well-equipped and led by a tough seasoned general who crushed the  US-backed insurgency in Chechnya.

The Russian forces have taken with them the advanced Leer-3 electronic warfare system, which includes specially configured Orlan-10 drones, jamming devices, etc. Borders have been sealed.

The mandate for Russian forces is to protect “strategic assets”. Presumably, such assets include the Pentagon-funded labs in Kazakhstan.

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , , | 1 Comment

Covid: Vaccine vs infection myocarditis risk

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | January 9, 2022

It’s been clear that the Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines cause myocarditis for some time. What hasn’t been clear, though, is whether the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is greater than it is after infection. If the risk after infection is even greater than it is after vaccination, then a pretty good case can be made for not worrying too much about vaccine induced myocarditis, under the assumption that almost everyone who doesn’t get vaccinated is sooner or later going to get covid, and thereby be exposed to the risk of post-infection myocarditis.

If, on the other hand, the risk is greater after vaccination, then a more careful weighing of risks needs to be done. For the large segments of the population that face infinitesimal personal risk from covid-19 (basically everyone under 40 years of age who is not overweight and who doesn’t have any underlying health issues), even a small risk of serious disease from the vaccines could be enough to tip the scales in favour of not vaccinating.

And myocarditis is a serious disease, make no mistake. Lately, I’ve been hearing this sentence alot: “but the myocarditis caused by the covid vaccines is mild!”. I’d never heard of “mild” myocarditis pre-covid. Pre-covid, myocarditis was always considered a serious disease. What the people saying this mean is that the patients admitted to hospital with myocarditis after vaccination are usually able to go home after a few days, and don’t generally end up in an ICU. Which is true.

But we don’t say that most heart attacks are “mild” just because they don’t result in a stay in an ICU, and just because the patient is usually able to leave the hospital within a week. A heart attack is a heart attack, and is by definition serious. The same goes for myocarditis. Our heart muscles are not very good at repairing themselves, and it is impossible to know today the extent to which an episode of vaccine induced myocarditis increases the person’s future risk of serious long-term complications, such as chronic heart failure or atrial fibrillation.

So, myocarditis is always serious, regardless of whether it puts you in an ICU or not, and we need to know whether the risk of myocarditis caused by the vaccines is greater than the risk caused by infection.

Thankfully, a study was recently published in Nature Medicine that helps us to answer that question. What the researchers did was to gather data from everyone in the UK over the age of 16 who was vaccinated against covid-19 between December 2020 and August 2021. This works out to about 40 million people (more than half the UK population). For this massive cohort, data was then gathered on myocarditis events and on positive covid tests. 8% of the 40 million people had a positive covid test during the study period. The objective of the study was to see what the risk of myocarditis was within 28 days of vaccination vs infection, and relate that to the background rate of myocarditis.

There is one big problem with taking the numbers in this study at face value, and that is that it used a positive covid test as the indicator for covid infection. But we know that up to half of all covid-infections are asymptomatic, and on top of that there is an unkown number of people who have symptoms but don’t take the test. So the true number of infections is likely to be at least twice as high as the test-confirmed infections. This creates an unfair comparison when comparing with the vaccines, because we know about everyone who gets the vaccine. There aren’t lots of people who have been secretly vaccinated, and aren’t included in the statistics. So whatever risk rate we get for myocarditis after infection should probably be halved, to more accurately reflect reality.

Anyway, let’s get to the results.

The first thing that is important to note is that the relative risk of myocarditis after vaccination vs infection appears to vary massively depending on how old you are. Among people over the age of 40, there was no sign that the vaccines increased risk of myocarditis at all. A positive covid-19 test, on the other hand, increased the risk 12-fold in this group. So for people over the age of 40, the risk of myocarditis after infection was much higher than the risk after vaccination.

Among people between 16 and 40 years of age, however, the situation was very different. In this group, the 28 day risk of getting myocarditis after a positive covid-test was “only” increased four-fold. The risk after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine was increased two-fold, while the risk after the first dose of the Moderna vaccine increased four-fold.

Let’s remember that the the covid test is probably only catching half, at best, of all infections, so the real risk increase after infection is more like two-fold, not four-fold. In other words, in people under 40, the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine causes roughly the same number of cases of myocarditis as an actual covid infection, while the first dose of the Moderna vaccine causes roughly twice as many cases of myocarditis.

Ok, so let’s get to the second dose. The second dose of the Pfizer vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis three-fold, while the risk after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was increased 21-fold!

It’s safe to conclude here that the decision, a few months back, by authorities in many European countries to put a hold on giving the Moderna vaccine to anyone under the age of 30 was wise. One thing that is clear is that the second dose, of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine, increases risk substantially when compared with the risk seen after the first dose. Which really begs the question how smart it is to recommend a third dose to people under the age of 40. It’s reasonable to think that the third dose might increase the risk of myocarditis even further.

One thing that is clear from the data in this study is that there is a strong age gradient, with risk of myocarditis after vaccination increasing massively with decreasing age. In fact, for the youngest group (16-29 years), the risk of myocarditis after getting the second dose of the Moderna vaccine was increased 74-fold!

Considering that decreasing age also means decreasing risk of a bad outcome from covid (including decreasing risk of myocarditis after covid), it is reasonable to think that there is an inflection point at which the harms of vaccination outweigh the benefits. On top of that, there is evidence that increasing the number of doses increases the risk of myocarditis. With those two factors in mind, it’s my measured opinion that giving boosters to healthy young people, and especially to children, is nuts. On top of that, many, if not most, young adults and children have already had covid, and therefore have as good immunity as it’s possible to get, so boosting literally exposes them to risk of harm without any possibility of benefit. When the benefits of vaccination are zero, any non-zero risk is unacceptable.

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

There Was an Element of Medical Freedom Uprising to Kazakhstan’s Revolt

It sprung up just as new bans for the unvaccinated (55% of the population) were to go into effect

RIA Katyusha | January 5, 2022

Anti-Empire : Did pan-Turks, Islamists, and Soros try to jump on the train? They would be stupid not to. But social unrest doesn’t start because Joe Kazakh wants more CIA black sites, but because his bread costs twice as much, he will have to lockdown his shop for the fourth time in two years, and he’s having to get experimental mRNA or lose the ability to feed his family. That he has been ruled by the same authoritarian and corrupt guy and network of clans since 1989 doesn’t help things either. The Russian alternative media outlet RIA Katyusha has more.

Machine-translated from Russian. 

Last Kazakh warning to Putin: vaccination and greed of elites as the cause of the revolution in Kazakhstan

Another republic of the former USSR and Russia’s strategic ally, Kazakhstan, found itself embroiled in the classic color revolution. And although it is obvious that the conductors of current events are located in Paris, London and Washington and their goal is to weaken China and implement the old Masonic idea of ​​a “united Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok”, the local authorities, which cared exclusively about their own pockets and following the covid instructions of the globalists, hoping to come to terms with the devil. That is, she was doing the same thing as the Russian “elite”. 

Gas prices shouted about by the Russian state media have become nothing more than a pretext for massive protests. The “technocrats” in power in Kazakhstan (hello to “ours” Mishustin and Kiriyenko) brought the people to seething anger with a drop in living standards and mandatory vaccination with QR codes, and also missed the preparation of protests by Soros structures.

This — namely, the stupidity and inability to discern the threat even to one’s own skin — is one of the main differences between technocrats and traditional rulers, of which Alexander Lukashenko can serve as an example. But Lukashenko sat there because he had someone to rely on. Putin and his comrades have no one to rely on – the people and the army with the Church will not defend the servants of the globalists. Therefore, the Russian elite need to study the Kazakh experience very deeply if, of course, they do not want to step on the neighbor’s rake.

Apparently, Russia is on the verge of losing one of its main allies, without which it will lose its influence throughout Central Asia. Power is slipping away from the hands of local technocrats and the former head of the country Nazarbayev in real time, and it is time for President Tokayev to sit next to Yanukovych and start writing the second volume of the book: “How to lose everything and understand nothing.”

Formally, the protests began on January 2 in the west of the country in the city of Zhanaozen, Mangistau region, after the price for a liter of liquefied gas rose to 120 tenge ($ 0.27) from January 1. The protesters demanded to lower the gas price to 60 tenge ($ 0.13), but they were simply not noticed by either the authorities or the media, and therefore calmly spread to the rest of the country. Moreover, the country’s leadership was fully confident that everything would “dissolve by itself,” and TV experts cited the Europeans as an example, where, they say, they walked around and went home. But these experts did not take into account the most relevant things – there is no Soros in Europe, USAID (recognized as undesirable in Russia), which openly work with both government officials and civic activists, and the NED fund, which openly and since mid-December have been waiting for a riot and supported the movement.”

But that’s not the point. The main thing is that the authorities of Kazakhstan, just like the authorities of the Russian Federation, refused to see people’s protests against compulsory vaccination, vaccination of children and pregnant women and QR codes. They were unable to resolve issues with wild food prices, shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel, drought and deaths of livestock, but, like their Russian colleagues, they followed all the instructions of the WHO and the IMF, leading people to the point that any pretext would become the spark that Lenin talked about more than a hundred years ago. As a result, technocrats began to react only when the Kazakh revolt turned from a pure economy into politics, and militants and protesters began to seize administrative buildings and television channels. But the protesters seized the president’s residence in Alma-AtaThe total number of victims in Kazakhstan has already exceeded 700 people, of which 150 are policemen and soldiers. So far, there is no confirmed data on the deceased.

Now President Tokayev has already agreed to everything, even having fired Nazarbayev [and the PM and the cabinet], but the time has passed and no one wants to talk to him anymore. The only thing that can still save his skin is the introduction of martial law and the brutal suppression of the protest. However, he is unable to do this, for he is too tied to the West, which already considers the “buns” from the emergence of a “new Ukraine” under the belly of Russia and China. It is pointless to list everything that is happening there now – events are developing at such a speed that any information by the time of publication will be outdated. It is much more important for us to understand the reasons, because much of what is happening there is too similar to what is happening in Russia.

Let’s start with the main factors that drove people to the streets. The main one is the fall in the standard of living of the population (which is officially not there) and the rise in prices (hello to Rosstat named after the Ministry of Economy of the Russian Federation together with the Central Bank and who else is counting inflation for us). Last year, according to official data, prices for goods in Kazakhstan soared by 8.9%, which is higher than in Russia. The prices for food products rose most noticeably in Kazakhstan: plus 11.3% for the year in October 2021. In July-August of this year, there was a growth in prices for vegetables of long-term storage (potatoes, carrots, beets), which was not typical for the summer months and a record in recent years, against the background of a shortage of their supply by the end of the off-season. Amid depletion of domestic stocks before the arrival of the new harvest, the monthly price increase for these products in June showed record values ​​in recent years, which led to a sharp jump in the annual inflation rate (immediately by 30.6% over the same period a year earlier). In October 2021, the annual growth in consumer prices for vegetables was 25.5%. Meat rose 10.3%, sunflower oil 56.2% year on year and sugar 32.1% year on year.

Also in October, the country faced a diesel shortage. The situation influenced not only the increase in the cost of diesel fuel, but also gave rise to problems for transport companies, KTZ, and also created risks to ensure the stable operation of utilities and road services. Diesel fuel was sold at many gas stations in the country only with coupons during these weeks, some of them did not have it at all. According to official data, the growth in gasoline prices was (+ 15.6% per year), diesel (+ 24.4% per year), or by a quarter. The shortage of fuel was added to the shortage of electricity. In a number of regions, in order to save electricity during peak hours, its supply was suspended. In addition, in the west of Kazakhstan in the summer of 2021, there was an intense heat and lack of rainfall, which led to a large-scale drought. Farmers have suffered huge losses in the Mangistau region and the Aral region of the Kyzylorda region, livestock deaths were recorded everywhere. The network spread eerie footage of emaciated animals, which the owners were forced to feed with cardboard paper. Despite the difficult situation, the Ministry of Agriculture was in no hurry to provide prompt assistance to farmers.

Objectively speaking, the price of autogas in Kazakhstan is several times lower than in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine – even after the increase. But if it was only a question of gas, then there would be no protests. As the inhabitants of the Russian north of the country write, the worst thing in this situation is that the technocrats did not have any positive plan to improve the situation of people, but they had plans to drag people through lockdowns and stab them to death.

In Russia, the state media are trying to keep silent about this, but one of the main reasons for the current protests is not the economy, but new restrictions that were planned to be introduced there from January 5. Due to the rapid spread of the omicron strain, unvaccinated citizens were disallowed from crowded places: banks, post offices, baths, fitness rooms, public service centers, not to mention shopping and entertainment centers.

This is after lockdowns and vaccinations in the worst European and Australian traditions. The news of a new lockdown was the second reason for the riot. For understanding – Kazakhstan has become the toughest country in terms of vaccinations, QRs and restrictions in the ex-USSR, constantly testing its people for strength. Aizhan Esmagambetova, Chairperson of the Committee for Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan, stated that since the beginning of the year, workers in labor collectives who refuse compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 will be fined: Administrative responsibility is provided for both individuals – 5 monthly calculation indices, and for legal entities”, – Yesmagambetova said at a briefing, answering the question of what sanctions are provided for refusing vaccination and undergoing PCR testing for coronavirus. She noted that the employer in case of non-fulfillment of the requirements can also be involved to administrative responsibility. The current lockdown, after all the restrictions and vaccinations, would have become the 4th for Kazakhstan since the beginning of 2021although a number of them were not in the entire country. It makes no sense to say how many small businesses were closed because of this, and people were left without a livelihood. And no one will say, because they were not counted.

But in the summer, the local WHO branch, the “interdepartmental commission on the non-proliferation of COVID-19,” recommended the chief state sanitary doctor of Kazakhstan to prohibit more than 20 people from working in the service sector, in industrial enterprises and in labor collectives with an experimental potion.

Since November 15 of last year, schools and medical institutions in Kazakhstan began vaccination against the coronavirus with the Pfizer drug for adolescents, pregnant and lactating women. Since November 22, vaccination has begun in the city of Aktobe [0.5 million people], and only eight breastfeeding women and four adolescents have been vaccinated. In October 2021, the chief sanitary doctor of Kazakhstan, Yerlan Kiyasov, approved the guidelines for vaccination of adolescents with Pfizer. “We are now seeing that everything seems to be going well. We did not see any obvious problems. Babies, pregnant women and lactating women are easily tolerated, ” said the head of their Ministry of Health.

In general, the Kazakh authorities did everything they could to get as many people as possible to hate them and take part in the protests. At the same time, as in Russia, total hatred and distrust of the regime was masked with deliberate lies from the court sociologists, who, like ours, sang the mantras about “Everything is calm in Baghdad.”

Of course, the agents of the United States and Britain, favored by the Kazakh authorities, could not help but take advantage of this. We sweep aside the Turkish trail, because both the current government and the rebels are completely pro-Turan and they win in any case. But for the United States and Britain, destabilization in Kazakhstan is just a gift for the New Year. Create a “new Ukraine” with such a border with Russia and China, start pogroms against the Russians and drive out Chinese business, support the Uighurs not only with words.

With all this, the Kazakh elite helped the sorrows as best they could — just like the Kiriyenko’s department helped and helps organizations-inagents to receive presidential grants, supported all sorts of Morgensterns, etc.

However, in Russia, fortunately, in addition to Kiriyenko, there is a “power tower” that thinned out this residency at least a little – and in Kazakhstan, for a minute, the Soros Foundation, USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy NED and etc. In the last 15 years, the total number of NGOs in the republic has grown significantly. If in 2003 there were about two thousand of them, now there are 22 thousand. About 200 non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan receive foreign funding, 70% of which comes from the United States. These data were presented in his report at the Civil Forum in Astana by Minister of Social Development Darkhan Kaletayev. “Today, 53 international organizations, 30 foreign government organizations, 77 foreign NGOs and foundations operate in Kazakhstan,” – he noted. Moreover, since 2019, on the one hand, actively working with the elites, especially the regional ones, on the other, they openly worked against Nazarbayev and Atayev, promoting Russophobia (for example, blaming Russia for sugar prices) and campaigning for a “path to Europe.” The Strategic Culture Foundation wrote about this in 2019 in its large article “The United States Increases Pressure on Kazakhstan “. Who was not among the NGOs? Of course, the representatives of Russia. Thus, our country did not react in any way to the arrest of one of the few supporters of Russia – Ermek Taychibekov. She not only did not oppose his arrest, but did not even grant him citizenship last year. Moreover, it was revealingly done while talking about “the friendship of our countries.” However, now the main question is what Moscow will do in the event of the start of ethnic cleansing of Russians in the north of the country. And this scenario, given the activation of nationalists, is far from being so fantastic.

Of course, it was not without the fugitive oligarchs. Thus, Mukhtar Ablyazov, accused of corruption and living in Europe, does not even try to deny that he actively supports the riots, dreaming that Kazakhstan would be like Ukraine and Armenia.

In addition to these reasons, one can find a hundred more ethnic and regional problems, such as the competition between the junior and senior Zhus, the strengthening of nationalists under the leadership of the Turks, the betrayal of the elite under the control of London, and so on and so forth. Coups generally include the sum of all factors, most of which we can see in our country, starting with the coronavirus according to the WHO guidelines and the destruction of the economy according to the IMF patterns and ending with the complacency of the authorities through their own experts and the growing discontent of the “fugitive oligarchs” who continue to hold their agents in the governing bodies of the Russian Federation. And in place of the relevant departments, it would be nice to study the Kazakh experience. But the main conclusion is obvious: the bestial attitude towards their people and the betrayal of national interests for a carrot from the globalists will in any case sideline the authorities themselves, no matter how much they count on agreements with the Rothschilds and other “owners of money.” Do not negotiate with the devil, expel him – this is how the Russian civilization acted during the heyday of its history.

Source: RIA Katyusha (Russian alternative media)

Hat tip to Edward Slavsquat

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , , , | Leave a comment

EU, a Human Rights Basketcase

Francesca Donato | January 5, 2022

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | 3 Comments

The Great Reset: Do You Really Want To Go There?

Money Circus | February 9, 2021

Time to make an educated, perspicacious estimation of where this is heading. The following applies to most countries:

The pretext (problem):

  • Scientific data is being manipulated to drive public fear, out of all proportion to medical and health norms or recent hospital, infection or mortality rates.
  • Mask and social distancing rules have a clearly negative impact on social health.
  • Corporate interests are ‘informing’ government policy: from jabs to ‘immunity’ passports; facial recognition and software that tracks location and distance from other people; to paying hospitals for ‘finding’ Covid and intubating patients.
  • Corporate interests linked to the above censor social media for the ‘public good’.
  • Military and ad hoc bureaucratic committees censor information to encourage ‘consent’. The press is used to deliver wartime blanket propaganda.
  • Lockdowns are extended on numerous pretexts.

The process (reaction):

  • Rules are tweaked constantly, maximizing disruption and uncertainty perhaps with the intention of disguising the objective of preventing resistance.
  • Masks, distancing, gathering limits and even attempts to ban singing or speaking loudly, directly curb fundamental liberties.
  • Economic life is sharply curtailed, killing small and mid-size businesses and rendering the population dependent on government and corporations for support.
  • Military have been put on standby to assist police in maintaining order, to vaccinate the population forcibly (why else would the military be needed), and to isolate politicians from the public.
  • Concentration camps for vaccine resisters have been publicly discussed in countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The silence of other countries like Britain speaks volumes (on the other hand Britain is rather small and previously used Australia as its holding pen for deplorables).
  • The Executive operates by diktat, rules, ‘mandates’ and the misuse of earlier laws. Only sometimes through legislation, often submitted to lawmakers retrospectively or at short notice.

The outcome (solution):

Several front organizations, mainly bankers and tech companies drive this part but the ideology is technocracy, as promoted by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (see second part of this article, Origins of Technocracy):

  • Food and farming is already disrupted, particularly meat but also soy and other forms of protein. Inevitable impact on diet. Some positive outcome likely, such as reduction in obesity, but may also impact brain health and intelligence.
  • Energy: Considerable shortfall if politicians implement plans to end use of hydrocarbons. Bio-fuel, solar and wind will make up a fraction of the difference, while plans for smart cities and 5G, electric cars and electric heating will massively increase demand.
  • Energy-based accounting could make many products uneconomic or expensive. Hard to estimate as governments may subsidize some items.
  • Innovation to suffer from move to a recycling-based economy where repurposing replaces manufacturing.
  • Service based economy will replace consumption. Personal ownership of cars may cease. Air travel may become a rarity.
  • Rationing and waiting lists are likely, as in the Soviet Union where people waited years to acquire a car (this time you may even wait to borrow a car). No private deals, all transactions to be public, not only tracked and surveilled but regulated. Those raised with electronic gadgets and battery-driven everything may experience material privation.
  • Regulation will see the biggest lifestyle changes. Residence permits will decide where you live. You will need a reason to travel. Social credit scores will determine your access to services.
  • Economic dependence, from income to spending. Jobs may be allocated, with limited choice of location, as in the former USSR.
  • Public services may be interrupted as government transition from tax-based system to energy credits and carbon offsets. Massive decline in wealth. Stuff not made is never regained.
  • Monetary system: Plan to replace money with energy-based credits.
  • Pensions, savings and assets may be lost, seized by government or compulsorily purchased and exchanged at a rate favourable to the authorities.

It seems clear to me where this is intended to lead. Those who willfully ignore reality will not be persuaded by words and we need to stop focusing on the small data. Yes it is a fraud but perhaps it is intended to distract us. After all, it is only a pretext.

Do you want to go to this outcome? If not, now is the time to turn away.

One must always identify and name one’s enemy. In this case he has hidden for years. Authors like Carroll Quigley were censored, the books pulped, the printing plates smashed. Those like Antony Sutton lost their jobs, too. Thanks, however, to those who knew them, such as Patrick M Wood who collaborated with Sutton, we know where their efforts were directed and some inkling of their intention. In recent years, the mask of secrecy has slipped somewhat. The State Corporatist Media has conceded that the Trilateral Commission is not a conspiracy theory; that front organizations like the Bilderberg Group do in fact exist.

The press still refuses to interrogate the work of these groups, instead mentioning them only in hushed, reverential tones. This does not mean the press ignores them, it simply refuses to acknowledge that it acts on their behalf. It has for years conveyed the message and prepared public opinion clandestinely. We had to wait for David Rockefeller himself to draw aside the curtain in 1991.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ― David Rockefeller

So what’s the plan?

The following is a summary and potted history courtesy of Patrick Wood and his interlocutor Richard Grove of Tragedy & Hope.

Utopian movement seeking to abandon the use of money to price goods, instead judging value purely by energy inputs. Technocracy is a method of governance that has no political ideology. Plato’s Republic has a chapter on cybernetics and social control.

Utopians took many forms — communism, socialism, fascism — and some came close to religion, like scientism and humanism.

Henri Saint-Simon stated, “A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”

Saint-Simon’s disciple was Auguste Comte, the father of sociology. They developed Positivism, the concept that truth can only be determined through rationalism or science. Positivism in turn gave birth to Scientism, which says that only science can discover truth about humans and reality and there is no other truth. As it does not explain the soul, emotion, caring or jealousy, it does not acknowledge these truths. The Prussian physiologist and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt took this further, insisting humans have no soul and so can be manipulated like a clockwork orange and this gives rise to outcomes-based education, focused on standardization as an end in itself.

Born in the white heat of industrial expansion. Gained attention from the apparent failure of capitalism during the Great Depression. Boosted when taken up by Columbia University in 1932. Technocracy Inc formed as an ideological movement in 1933.

Shared basement in Hamilton Hall, Columbia U, with the early IBM which was then developing the tabulators which they would lease to the German government for social profiling in the 1930s and 40s. No further information exists as IBM historical documents have been lost.

Brzezinski in his book Political Power: USA/USSR (1964) writes that the DDR Stasi was gathering huge amounts of data on people but lacked the technical power to put it to use.


Technocracy and technocrats don’t care what political system they operate under. It is concerned with the correct scientific methodology rather than the political ends.

German technocracy movement was not connected to the U.S. counterpart but shared and reprinted articles. Hitler saw technocrats as a rival and outlawed the organisation. However, technocrats had a profound influence on Hitler’s Germany and continued to communicate. The Third Reich could not have happeed without technocrats and the Technocracy movement. Ironically, Canada temporarily outlawed Technocracy Inc fearing it had fascists links.

Technocracy started at Columbia U, jumped over to Germany. The experiments in the concentration camps created a body of science that they brought back to the U.S. After WW2, Operation Paperclip transfered thousands of German technocrats to the U.S. where the German scientific experiments were continued under MK-Ultra by the CIA.

Mistaken association with Communism. Members of Technocracy Inc would have bridled at association with Communists, who still used money and priced goods in money. However Brzezinski proposed that Marxism could be a stepping stone, destroy capitalism prior to installing the technotronic era. This will not be a personal dictator but a system of control, technology enforcing laws that keep you in line.

As for Fabian socialism, which aimed to merge the corporate and government world but still envisaged private property and a price based system. In short, all former systems have supply and demand, resolved by prices, and technocracy has an energy or resource-based economy. Technocracy is not proposed as a political form of government.


Eugenics was mostly based in California rather than Columbia but the peak of eugenics coincided with that of technocracy. There was no organizational link between Technocracy and the Eugenics movement, however they shared a common approach. From a scientists’ perspective managing society is similar to livestock.

Eugenics was a response to the challenge of Darwin and Marx and the fascists, challenging people to think of ways to change society in previously unthinkable ways. These were radicals of their time: not of a left-wing radicalism but utopians in a race to the future. The Eugenics Record Office, of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, inspired many of Hitler’s speeches.


There was no backing from the tax-exempt foundations in the beginning. Technocracy was a grass roots movement and its founders were relatively poor.

In the 1960s Brzezinski taught at Columbia U and many of his books mirror Technocracy.

The Journal on Race Development (1910) became the Journal of International Relations, which in turn was merged with Foreign Affairs in 1922. It was founded by Yale alumnus Stanley Hall who was a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a member of Skull and Bones. This shows the link between the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite secret societies dedicated to “thinking the unthinkable” or shaking up society, as well as the sending of American academics to Europe for indoctrination before returning them to shape U.S. universities, future graduates and social institutions.


At the 1972 Bilderberg meeting, Rockefeller and Brzezinski went to sell the TC. They likely invited the Europeans of the Bilderbergers to join, such as Kissinger. They invite members, like any fraternity.

Brzezinski picked Jimmy Carter as presidential candidate, to whom he became National Security Adviser, gatekeeper to the President (10/17 have been members of the Trilateral Commission). Brzezinski bragged about educating Carter on foreign affairs and economics. At one point Carter had one third of the U.S. membership of the Trilateral Commission to his administration. Of his Cabinet, all were TCs bar one.

The Trilateral Commission decides policy in advance and implements it without reference to Congress through control of the Executive. What’s more, this was not political control.

They only wanted the executive branch in order to use the influence of the U.S. presidency to create their new world economic order. Of U.S. Trade Representatives, the first was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Of 12, nine have been members of the TC.

In addition to the U.S. Executive, the Trilateral Commission influences the World Bank. Of WB presidents, 6/8 have been members of the Trilateral Commission.

David Rockefeller in April 1967 as he spearheaded construction of the new World Trade Center, eight months after breaking ground.


Involved in Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia U, and United Nations. It is surprising that they did not fund Technocracy at the start, given that it was housed in Columbia. It’s competitor was the even more radical New School. Until the 1970s, these families never funded Technocracy.

The payback for the Rockefeller influence to the UN was the use of the UN as a contagion mechanism to spread Agenda 21 around the world. The UN makes an ugly project look pretty. It is the user interface that makes evil look friendly. Slogans like interdependence,

Jay Rockefeller is one of the few family members to be elected, in W. Virginia. Nelson had to be appointed as Vice President but as head of the Senate he pushed through the fast-track mechanism for trade treaties. It was used to push through trade deals with minimal oversight, including NAFTA, CAFTA, TIP and TPP. The Senate knew how dangerous this legislation is, by delegating to the executive branch the ability to negotiate treaties. They should be passed with a two-thirds vote but the president can now present a treaty for approval, that has 20 hours of floor debate, no amendments allowed and reduces the floor vote to 50 per cent. In the case of NAFTA, the Trilateral Commission pulled out all the big guns including Henry Kissinger to browbeat Congressmen to pass it. And it only just passed.

NAFTA was written by Carla Hills, member of the Trilateral Commission, signed by George HW Bush a member of the TC, pushed into law by Bill Clinton, a member of the TC, and lobbied by numerous members of the TC like Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger…

Nelson Rockefeller ensured through the fast-track mechanism could force through these changes.


NGOs, Trust Funds, Foundations have been the engine of social change for 100 years, as exposed by the Reece committee and the testimony of Norman Dodd.

These have reshaped universities, grade school and common core, business regulation, and then they for the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank. Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was closely associated with the Trilateral Commission at board of directors level.

Beneath this like a submarine is Technocracy, now surfacing.


1930s Technocracy proposed “functional sequences” or common functions that need to be managed by a central authority: health, manufacturing… Their view of the “service sequence” of education is “conditioning”.

Smart Grid is an original specification of Technocracy — the idea of controlling the energy that is consumed.

Total Awareness Surveillance is an original specification of Technocracy — you cannot manage what you cannot monitor. That is an engineer’s mindset.

For an economic system: financial records, people’s purchase intentions and desires, health records, education records like Common Core collects 400 data points on students now.

Public Private Partnership with flavors of partenrship.

All of these are in the Rio 1992 conference which was preceded by the Gro Harlem Brundtland Commission which convened 1982-87 producing a report, Our Common Future, popularising the phrase, sustainable development. Brundtland was a member of the Trilateral Commission, whose stated purpose is to create a new international economic order.

Was Agenda 21 an organic United Nations creation or was it produced by the Trilateral Commission, just like NAFTA? It completely reflects the new international economic order. The UN picks it up, the Rio Conference follows, Agenda 21 is published, book on biodiversity is published… Today Earth Charter and Sustainable Development has spread to every country right dnown to county and district level.


This overlaps with Agenda 21, as espoused in the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) promoted by Edmond de Rothschild in 1987 with Maurice Strong: they were participating in a United Nations project but if you see where their interests lay, they were gaining authority to pursue personal financial interests.

David de Rothschild wrote the comic book to spread the gospel to young people.


How do the Rockefellers and Rothschilds benefit from people not being able to defend themselves.

Why would Rockefeller try to end capitalism?

Bankers’ expertise is money. They don’t make anything. Perhaps it was never meant to be permanent and there is an end to money.

Their view of wealth is different. They don’t see thousands in the bank as security. There is no value in money. It can be declared obsolete tomorrow.

Wealth lies in resources of the Earth that support all life.

These will be licensed to people as the feudal barons let you survive in return for 80 per cent of your produce.

Sustainable development is twisting the resources out of the people and transfering it to a global trust (they never say who are the trustees: they will be those who set up the system).


It took 300-500 years to develop the principles of liberty.

They culminated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

If Technocracy wins it could take hundreds of years, perhaps even longer, for liberty to surface again.

Once they get control of the economic mechanims, they will control life itself.


The system will manage your carbon footprint. If you use too much electricity at home you may be denied a flight to a funeral. The elite will face no such restrictions.


This paper was issued in 1975 by the Trilateral Commission. The republic and democracy was outmoded for the coming technotronic era.

This suggested democracy is out of date… Brzezinski argued in his book Between Two Ages that bankers and multinational corporations already control countries, rendering the nation state a plaything. People who support nation states are derided as nativists.


“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” — David Rockefeller, 1991

Antony Sutton meanwhile was fired and censored for reporting on the Trilateral Commission. Sutton exposed how Wall Street had enabled the revolutions to take place in Russia and Germany and continued to finance and support the fascists and communists. Sutton saw the stacking of the Carter administration and recognized the patterns.

Before he even published anything David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, a member of the Trilateral Commission and trustee of the Hoover Institution had Sutton fired.


Steven Clark Rockefeller put together the Earth Charter. A theologian, Rockefeller is an instigator of the interfaith movement and all the major faiths have gone Green, with encyclicals from the Pope on climate change. Global stewardship, sustainable planning and development are the common buzzwords indicating their complete co-option. This goes back to the World Council of Churches and the Dulles brothers.

Nazi Oaks, by Mark Musser, explores the first Green movement to become state policy, which was that of the NAZI movement. Now there are books with titles like, Green Faith. Yet the new priesthood are the scientists who go up the mountain to listen to the volcano and come down and say the god of science says, ‘you must do x or y.’ No one is allowed to go to the volcano themselves, or to question what the scienpriests say they know, otherwise you are punished as a denier and excommunicated as a heathen.


Death is central to life. Transhumanism excludes god without being atheistic: they believe that they will become immortal.

In religion, the fall of man prescribes that death will be a feature until god wraps things up in the future. The transhumanists are making an end run around what religion says.

The mass surveillance society competes with god in another way, seeking to be the overseer of humanity and the recording of all your life’s deeds, good and bad. You will pay for your sins through your social credit score.


In 2005 the intelligence system in the U.S. was completely overhauled with the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, lording it over 17 national intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency.

The legislation to Congress to authorize the ODNI was sponsored by Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein, both members of the Trilateral Commission. George Bush created the ODNI and appointed John Negroponte as the first director: member of the Trilateral Commission.

So the TC proposed the law, filled the position and has taken control of the reorganisation of all intelligence gathering.

We know they want a new international economic order. Now the ODNI takes full control of data gathering, under which the NSA is merely an agent. This is the monitoring network for the whole Technocracy system.

They have all the phone calls and emails, all the health records through Obamacare, all the education data through Common Core, all financial and business data. The collection has grown but the ability to analyse the data has not kept up: moving the data from the storage devices into the CPUs to process, that’s the bottleneck, and putting it back again if necessary. They estimate they will solve that problem in three to five years. Then we’ll be in big trouble (date of interview, 2015).

This alone shows how close we are to the launch of Technocracy. This is an expression of the Trilateral Commission’s dominance over policy for the past 40 years. The odds of this small group having this much influence are, according to mathematicians, infinitesimal.


Two economic systems are fighting for control. They cannot co-exist. Technocracy and Capitalism are matter and anti-matter. One will die, one will live.

If the Technocracy system is set up properly, the system does the controlling. It monitors you and self corrects. This allows it to manage populations of billions without many people being involved. That is the idea of a scientific dictatorship.

The global elite are pedestrian academics and intellectuals at best. They have never had an original idea of their own. To gain advantage they have to hijack the ideas of others.

Technocracy was not their idea. It goes way back. The originals Greens of the 1960s will “spit molten nails that they got pushed out of their own movement”. The global elite took over the green movement and the purest objectives were hijacked by this elite who took off in a totally different direction.

They are hijackers. They take whatever idea suits them to push forward their own vested interests. It does not speak too well of their intellectual abilities.

Know who the enemy is. We have had our ladder leaning against the wrong wall, and we are worse off than we’ve been, for 40 years. We must identify the enemy to have any success, and make a target of them.

In the longer term, we must retain some vestige of liberty in the hearts of men, says Patrick Wood. If we lose our liberty people will be living in a scientific dictatorship where freedom is a curiosity. Hopefully enough people can keep a seed of liberty alive so that one day, when the dark ends, it may sprout again.

Notes from an interview by Patrick M Wood given to Richard Grove.

January 9, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Environmentalism, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment