Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

U.S. Officials Are Lying Too on Ukraine

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | February 17, 2022

U.S. officials are declaring unequivocally that Russian officials were lying when Russia stated that it was withdrawing troops from the Russia-Ukraine border. U.S officials say that it’s the exact opposite — that Russia is actually bringing more troops to the border.

Russian officials might well be lying about Russian troop movements. It certainly shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially if Russia is in fact going to actually invade the country.

Unfortunately, however, the Russians wouldn’t be the only ones lying about what is going on with Ukraine. So are U.S. officials. But of course that shouldn’t surprise anyone either, given that lying has always been a foundation stone of the U.S. national-security establishment, at least when “national security” is at stake.

As Russia has made clear, its objective is to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. If Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, that would enable the Pentagon and the CIA to install U.S. missiles, tanks, and troops along Russia’s border. That’s precisely what Russia opposes, in much the same way that U.S. officials would (and did) oppose Russian missiles, troops, and weaponry in Cuba.

In other words, if the U.S. provided assurances to Russia that Ukraine would not become a NATO member, the crisis would be over and Russian troops would be withdrawn. But the problem is that the Pentagon and the CIA do not want to give Russia that assurance. They are insistent on making Ukraine a member of NATO, an old Cold War dinosaur bureaucratic entity, so that they can station their missiles, troops, and tanks on Russia’s border. 

U.S. officials claim that Russia has nothing to worry about because, they say, the U.S. government is a peace-loving, non-aggressive regime. That’s a lie. In fact, the U.S. government is the most aggressive regime on the planet. Just ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries against which the U.S. government waged wars of aggression and killed and injured hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

During the Cold War, Poland was aligned with the Soviet Union as a member of the Warsaw Pact. After the ostensible end of the Cold War, the U.S. absorbed Poland into NATO, thereby enabling the Pentagon and the CIA to station missiles, troops, and tanks closer to Russia’s border, which is precisely what they want to do in Ukraine.

In fact, as the New York Times reported yesterday, the Pentagon has installed  missiles near the Polish village of Redzikowo, which is only about 100 miles from Russian territory. U.S. officials say that those missiles are situated there to protect Eastern Europe from Iran. That’s just another lie and a ridiculous one at that. Iran is no more a threat to Eastern Europe than Paraguay is. The fact that U.S. officials feel the need to lie about why their missiles are in Poland would obviously concern anyone in Russia.

Today, the Pentagon is sending thousands of U.S. troops into Romania and Poland, which gives everyone a very good picture of what would happen if Ukraine were absorbed into NATO. As soon as U.S. officials stoked any new crisis with Russia, there is no doubt that the Pentagon would do what they are doing today in Romania and Poland — they would be rushing thousands of troops into Ukraine along with missiles, tanks, other weaponry being positioned on Russia’s border.

In fact, it is a virtual certainty that if NATO absorbs Ukraine, the Pentagon will expand its worldwide system of permanent military bases to Ukraine. It’s not difficult to imagine a string of sprawling military bases in Ukraine, along with the bars, brothels, corruption, pollution, and violent crimes that inevitably come with them. 

As with anything that pertains to the Pentagon and the CIA, the mainstream press is playing its standard deferential and supportive role in the Ukraine crisis, blinding themselves from seeing the critical role that the U.S. national-security establishment has played in producing this crisis. It’s that blindness that then causes the mainstream press to continue endorsing ever-increasing budgets, power, and influence for the national-security establishment and its army of well-heeled “defense” contractors.

The only way out of this statist and highly dangerous morass is for the American people to come to the realization of what a horrific mistake it was to convert the U.S. government to a national-security state after World War II, which thereby enabled the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA to wage their Cold War racket and, later, their global war-on-terrorism racket. If Americans were to come to that realization, we could then have our founding constitutional system of a limited-government republic back and no more perpetual foreign-policy crises.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Canada orders firms to freeze assets of anyone who “indirectly” engages in Freedom Convoy protests

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | February 17, 2022

On Monday, the Canadian government announced drastic plans to freeze the bank accounts of protesters associated with the Freedom Convoy – a movement that’s standing against vaccine mandates. However, the government document containing these plans, which was published by the Canadian government late Tuesday night, reveals that the financial restrictions will extend far beyond bank accounts and can be used to target anyone who’s deemed to have “indirectly” engaged in the protests.

The new government order applies to a wide range of entities including banks, fundraising platforms, insurance companies, investment firms, loan companies, securities dealers, credit unions, and fraternal benefit societies.

It requires these entities to determine whether they’re dealing with a “designated person” which is defined as “any individual or entity that is engaged, directly or indirectly” in prohibited activities under the Emergencies Act. These prohibited activities include any “public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace” and include the activities of the Freedom Convoy protesters which Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau branded “illegal blockades.”

If these entities determine that they are dealing with a designated person, they’re required to:

  • Freeze the designated person’s property (which includes funds and virtual currency)
  • Cease providing “any financial or related services” to the designated person (insurance policies that were valid prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act on Monday and not associated with vehicles that are deemed to be engaging in prohibited activities are exempt from this provision)
  • Report the designated person to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
  • Report any “suspicious transactions” from the designated person to Canada’s anti-money laundering agency FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada)

These entities have also been granted full immunity against civil lawsuits for any actions they take to comply with this order.

You can read the full Canadian government order here.

According to the state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), “banks will be working with law enforcement to decide who should be ‘de-banked.’”

CBC also spoke with a senior Canadian government official who said that police could gather the names and license plate numbers of protesters and share this information with FINTRAC.

A former CSIS senior strategic analyst, Jessica Davis, added that freezing and seizing funds under these new rules is “likely to put a lot of financial pressure on the people who are participating in the protest” and that “it’s going to be very difficult for them.”

Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti even suggested that these sweeping new powers would be used to target those who are part of the “pro-Trump movement” when he was asked about whether those who donated to the Freedom Convoy because of their opposition to vaccine mandates should be worried about their bank accounts being frozen.

“If you are a member of… a pro-Trump movement who’s donating hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you oughta be worried,” Lametti said.

Shortly after the Canadian government announced these sweeping financial surveillance and censorship measures, the RCMP issued an order to all FINTRAC regulated companies in Canada and demanded that they cease transacting with 34 crypto wallets that are allegedly associated with the Freedom Convoy’s fundraising efforts. The order also demands that these companies report “any information about a transaction or proposed transaction” related to these addresses.

Greg Taylor, chief investment officer of fund manager Purpose Investments Inc., told BNN Bloomberg Television that the Trudeau government’s order had “caught everyone off guard.”

Philippe Jette, senior consultant to the Rivemont Crypto Fund, described the censorship of money as “something we see in an authoritarian country, not one like Canada” and warned that “freezing accounts for political reasons is a big, big slippery slope.”

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Moscow responds after US ‘cherry picked’ from Russia’s security proposals

RT | February 17, 2022

The US has “failed to provide a constructive answer” to all the key elements of Russia’s proposals on security guarantees, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in an official response to Washington on Thursday. The 10-page document was handed over in Moscow to American ambassador John Sullivan.

Washington has “cherry picked” some “convenient” topics out of a set of “indivisible” proposals and has further “twisted” them to create security advantages for the US and its allies, the ministry said, in an assessment of America’s security proposals. Such actions “raise doubts” as to the US’ willingness to improve European security, the Russian diplomats have added.

“Our ‘red lines’; our key security interests and Russia’s sovereign right to defend them are still being ignored,” the ministry said, adding that Moscow would have to respond with “military and technical measures.”

Russia also blasted ongoing Western media reports and officials’ statements about the supposedly planned invasion of Ukraine, saying the only purpose of such an information campaign is to “exert pressure” on Moscow and “discredit” Russia’s security proposals.

“No ‘Russian invasion’ into Ukraine the US and its allies have been talking about since autumn has taken place or is planned,” the ministry has said, adding that Moscow cannot be blamed for the rising tensions in Europe.

The Ukrainian conflict has been caused by solely internal reasons, Russia maintains, adding that Moscow has nothing to do with it. De-escalation of the situation around the embattled nation can only be achieved through Kiev fulfilling its part of the Minsk agreements and the US and NATO stopping arms supplies to Ukraine, ceasing joint drills with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and pulling out all Western instructors from its territory, the statement said.

The US ultimatums demanding Russia withdraw its troops from the “certain areas on its own territory” and threats of sanctions are “unacceptable” and only “undermine the prospects of reaching some real agreements,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

“Russian Armed Forces deployed to Russia’s territory do not affect and cannot affect fundamental US interests,” the statement pointed out, adding that “there are no [Russian] forces on the territory of Ukraine.”

Moscow also accused the US of circumventing the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe regulating the limits on and deployment of conventional military equipment in Europe, as well as the 1997 Russia-NATO ‘Founding Act’ on mutual relations. Washington and its allies have expanded their military infrastructure further to the east by deploying troops to the territory of the bloc’s new members after 1997, the foreign ministry said, calling such a situation “unacceptable.”

Russia “insists on the withdrawal of the US troops and equipment deployed in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in the Baltic States,” the statement said. Moscow has also demanded that the US withdraw its nuclear weapons deployed to the territory of its non-nuclear allies in Europe, as well as all the relevant rapid deployment infrastructure.

The very existence of nuclear weapons on their territory as well as NATO drills used to teach the troops of these nations to use nuclear arms violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Russia believes.

However, Moscow also sees some potential common ground for future negotiations with the US and NATO. Russia has particularly welcomed the US proposal on mutual verification and transparency measures, involving inspections of the US missile defense systems Aegis Ashore in Poland and Romania, as well as at relevant facilities in the European part of Russia’s territory.

Moscow also “sees a potential for future agreements” on mitigating the risks stemming from heavy-bomber sorties near the national borders of Russia, the US and its allies. The Russian Foreign Ministry welcomed “the US readiness” to discuss similar measures to prevent open-sea and neutral airspace incidents. Still, “this work cannot be a substitute for resolution of the key issues raised by Russia,” the statement cautioned.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Heart threat to young men is now undeniable, but vaccinations continue

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | February 17, 2022

IT gives me no pleasure to be the fortnightly bearer of bad tidings. It gives me even less pleasure to know that TCW Defending Freedom has been the only media outlet since last July to have regularly published MHRA Yellow Card reports – the records of adverse effects from the Covid vaccines.

We commission a detailed and professional analysis of the data each time, so that we can properly track the consequences of the jabs – including the rising list of fatalities – and freely pass on the information to our readers.

We believe it remains vital that we keep the data accessible in the public domain, with the details that most people would neither be able to find or calculate on their own.

The Yellow Card headlines this week are that deaths have topped 2,000 and now stand at 2,010.

The percentage of reactions to injections stands at one in 118, up from the one in 123 recorded before Christmas.

Reported cases of myocarditis (heart muscle inflammation) are significantly up again, now at 1,941. This compares with 1,362 reported by the beginning of December.

This last development is worrying indeed. First, because of the unexplained excess young male deaths last year that the Government now acknowledges, as Dr Ros Jones reported in TCW yesterday. Second, because it is now well-established that the likelihood of this reaction in young men is higher than their risk of myocarditis from Covid infection.

In this context I would point readers and health professionals to the Government’s own ‘information for health care professionals’ published on January 17.

It emphasises that all suspected cases must be reported to the MHRA using the Yellow Card scheme. It specifically demands that ‘in addition, a serum sample should be collected from any patient that is suspected of experiencing myocarditis or pericarditis following any Covid-19 vaccination and sent to the UK Health Security Agency, Colindale.  Please use the code “Heart Inflammation” or “Myocarditis” for easy identification and which vaccine dose (and vaccine brand) the symptoms developed after.’

Despite this admission of urgency, we have yet to see any alert by the Government to pause the vaccine for younger men, women and children.

We can only conclude that ministers are choosing to disregard a serious risk that they themselves warn of – a worrying display of acute cognitive dissonance.

‘Anyone who develops these symptoms within ten days of a Covid-19 vaccination should urgently seek medical assistance,’ the information alert adjures.

But from the tone of the message, all is seemingly okay, because ‘the existing evidence base shows that most patients with myocarditis post-vaccination respond well to standard treatment for the acute episode, and the prognosis of the myocarditis is good’.

However, it adds that ‘it may have long-term consequences and studies are in progress to further understand the potential longer-term consequences with follow-up at three months and six months’.

Well, we’ll just have to pray that each individual strikes lucky, won’t we? Because while myocarditis may be mild, bringing few or no symptoms, it can also be severe, causing life-threatening heart failure. 

Furthermore, no one can deny that its immediate complications include ventricular dysrhythmias (abnormal heart rhythm), left ventricular aneurysm (swelling of a weakened muscular wall), congestive heart failure, and dilated cardiomyopathy (thinning of the left ventricle). Or that, despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years. The mortality rate is up to 20 per cent at one year and 50 per cent at five years. 

Why on Earth would any government actively inflict this hazard on healthy young people who are effectively at zero risk of dying from Covid?

Such breathtaking complacency is alarming. It is as though simply acknowledging myocarditis as a reaction makes everything all right and no further action is needed. In effect, the Government can’t ignore the problem, so it neutralises it by normalising it. That may be convenient, but it is mendacious and dangerously disingenuous.

Here is our latest MHRA Yellow Card combination reporting summary up to February 2, 2022 (data published February 10, 2022):

Adult – Primary and Booster/Third Dose, Child Administration

* Pfizer: 25.8million people, 48.7million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 158 people impacted.

* Astrazeneca: 24.9million people, 49.1million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 102 people impacted.

* Moderna: 1.6million people, three million doses. Yellow Card reporting rate, one in 45 people impacted

Overall one in 118 people injected experienced a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be fewer than 10 per cent of actual figures, according to MHRA.

Adult Booster or 3rd Doses given = 37,419,104 people

Booster Yellow Card Reports: 28,481 (Pfizer) + 452 (AZ) + 15,682 (Moderna) + 148 (Unknown) = 44,763.

Reactions: 469,842 (Pfizer) + 861,650 (AZ) + 117,517 (Moderna) + 4,596 (Unknown) = 1,453,605.

Reports: 163,709 (Pfizer) + 243,279 (AZ) + 35,302 (Moderna) + 1,509 (Unknown) = 443,799 people impacted.

Fatal: 717 (Pfizer) + 1,218 (AZ) + 37 (Moderna) + 38 (Unknown) = 2,010

Blood disorders: 16,694 (Pfizer) + 7,787 (AZ) + 2,405 (Moderna) + 62 (Unknown) = 26,948.

Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis: 871 (Pfizer) + 3,026 (AZ) + 100 (Moderna) + 25 (Unknown) = 4,022.

Anaphylaxis: 648 (Pfizer) + 870 (AZ) + 87 (Moderna) + 2 (Unknown) = 1,607.

Acute cardiac: 12,094 (Pfizer) + 11,095 (AZ) + 2,965 (Moderna) + 88 (Unknown) = 26,242.

Pericarditis/myocarditis: 1,200 (Pfizer) + 428 (AZ) + 306 (Moderna) + 7 (Unknown) = 1,941

Eye Disorders: 7,700 (Pfizer) + 14,776 (AZ) + 1,445 (Moderna) + 83 (Unknown) = 24,004.

Blindness: 153 (Pfizer) + 316 (AZ) + 31 (Moderna) + 4 (Unknown) = 504.

Deafness: 284 (Pfizer) + 423 (AZ) + 48 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 760.

Spontaneous abortions: 467 + 1 premature baby death / 14 stillbirth/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 227 + 5 stillbirth (AZ) + 60 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 759 miscarriages.

Nervous system disorders: 78,444 (Pfizer) + 181,941 (AZ) + 19,095 (Moderna) + 834 (Unknown) = 280,314.

Strokes and central nervous system haemorrhages: 749 (Pfizer) + 2286 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 3,096.

Facial paralysis including Bell’s palsy: 1,084 (Pfizer) + 998 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 10 (Unknown) = 2,240.

Vertigo and tinnitus: 4,047 (Pfizer) + 6,888 (AZ) + 671 (Moderna) + 39 (Unknown) = 11,645.

Seizures: 1,061 (Pfizer) + 2,048 (AZ) + 248 (Moderna) + 17 (Unknown) = 3,374.

Paralysis: 493 (Pfizer) + 869 (AZ) + 97 (Moderna) + 8 (Unknown) = 1,467.

Disturbances in consciousness: 7,241 (Pfizer) + 10,897 (AZ) + 2,090 (Moderna) + 73 (Unknown) = 20,301.

Infections: 11,449 (Pfizer) + 20,029 (AZ) + 2,121 (Moderna) + 146 (Unknown) = 33,745.

Herpes: 2,139 (Pfizer) + 2,674 (AZ) + 237 (Moderna) + 23 (Unknown) = 5,073.

Skin disorders: 32,887 (Pfizer) + 53,107 (AZ) + 12,551 (Moderna) + 326 (Unknown) = 98,871

Respiratory disorders: 20,802 (Pfizer) + 29,550 (AZ) + 3,971 (Moderna) + 189 (Unknown) = 54,512.

Reproductive/breast disorders: 30,019 (Pfizer) + 20,606 (AZ) + 4,859 (Moderna) + 199 (Unknown) = 55,683.

Psychiatric disorders: 9,806 (Pfizer) + 18,268 (AZ) + 2,320 (Moderna) + 106 (Unknown) = 30,500.

Vomiting: 5,109 (Pfizer) + 11,629 (AZ) + 1,710 (Moderna) + 58 (Unknown) = 18,506

Tremor: 2,107 (Pfizer) + 9,920 (AZ) + 630 (Moderna) + 50 (Unknown) = 12,707.

Children and young people special report: Suspected side-effects reported in under-18s.

* Pfizer: 3,100,000 children (1st doses) plus 1,400,000 second doses resulting in 2,962 Yellow Cards (up 104 since last week).

* AZ: 12,400 children (1st doses) plus 9,200 second doses resulting in 254 Yellow Cards. Reporting rate one in 49.

* Moderna: 2,000 children (1st doses) and 1,200 second doses resulting in 18 Yellow Cards.

* Brand Unspecified: 18 Yellow Cards

Total = 3,114,400 children injected. Total Yellow Cards for under-18s = 3,252.

For full reports, including 346 pages of specific reaction listings, see here.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

Why Did Chris Whitty Go From Opposing Face Masks to Mandating Them With No New Evidence They Work?

By Gary Sidley | The Daily Sceptic | February 15, 2022

One of the major frustrations throughout the COVID-19 crisis has been the failure of high-profile journalists to ask ministers and SAGE scientists challenging questions about the rationale for their – often unprecedented – decisions. When they were not baying for earlier and harder restrictions, the journalists who participated in the numerous coronavirus press conferences typically restricted themselves to questions seeking clarification about the detail of a new rule or imposition rather than imploring the experts to justify the reasoning that led to their non-evidenced diktats.

I am sure I’m not alone in fantasising about the sort of questions I would like to put to the key rule-makers responsible for this extraordinary two-year assault on our basic human rights. Consider, for instance, Professor Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, and his belated support for requiring people to wear masks in community settings, arguably the most insidious of all the COVID-19 restrictions.

This is not an academic issue. Thanks to the Government’s relentless messaging about the purported benefits of face coverings, there is a real danger that widespread community masking – with all the attendant physical, social, psychological and environmental harms – could become a permanent feature, at least in certain sections of our society.

Prof. Whitty’s track record on the contentious issue of masking healthy people is, like that of many of the high-profile political and scientific rule-makers, characterised by contradiction. In early March 2020, he unequivocally stated that healthy people should not be wearing face-coverings. One month later, he was faltering, saying that, “The evidence is weak, but the evidence of a small effect is there under certain circumstances”. Since this time he has supported – or, at least silently colluded – with the pro-mask lobby. What changed his mind? No robust evidence supporting mask efficacy emerged in spring 2020, nor any time since, so what ‘nudged’ him to relinquish his anti-mask stance?

To clarify the reasons for his change of mind, I would be keen to be given the opportunity to ask our Chief Medical Officer the following questions:

  1. Around April/May 2020, what piece of robust real-world research made you change your mind about the ineffectiveness of masking healthy people in the community?
  1. As late as December 2020, a WHO document concluded that: “There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community.” Do you agree with the BBC Newsnight reporter Deborah Cohen that the WHO’s U-turn on masks was likely to have been the result of political lobbying?
  1. With regard to the imposition of masks, what has been the specific rationale offered to you by the Government’s behavioural scientists, such as Professor David Halpern?
  1. Is it merely a coincidence that masks powerfully help enforce the main ‘nudges’ promoted by behavioural scientists to achieve compliance with COVID-19 restrictions?
  1. Do you agree that the most robust type of scientific evidence is that provided by real-world, randomised controlled trials? If so, how can you reconcile your promotion of mask wearing with the results of such trials that consistently show that masks do not significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2?
  1. Do you agree that, in a democratic free society, the evidential bar for mandating an intervention (such as masking the healthy) should be set very high? If so, do you believe that the empirical evidence for the benefits of masks as a means of reducing viral transmission reaches this threshold?
  1. There are a wide range of harms (physical, social, psychological and environmental) associated with masking healthy people, including the maintenance of inflated levels of fear that will have contributed significantly to the tens-of-thousands of non-Covid excess deaths and the current mental health crisis. Do you believe that a marginal reduction in viral transmission can compensate for this extensive collateral damage?
  1. If the Government’s behavioural scientists had not promoted masks as a way of increasing a sense of ‘solidarity’ that encouraged general compliance with the COVID-19 restrictions, can you confirm whether you would have changed your advice?

Growing numbers of people would like to hear Whitty’s answers to these important questions. Given the opportunity, I would be very happy to directly put them to our Chief Medical Officer in a public forum. Failing this, maybe a high-profile journalist will rise to the challenge. Ah, we can but dream.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist, a member of HART and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Ottawa Freedom Convoy Tears Down Illusion of Democracy in North America

By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 16, 2022

No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power!
When the oppressed man finds no justice,
When the burden grows unbearable, he appeals
With fearless heart to Heaven,
And thence brings down his everlasting rights,
Which there abide, inalienably his,
And indestructible as stars themselves.

-Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell’s Rutli Oath

Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?

As the editor of a Canadian geopolitical magazine for over 10 years and author of four books on Canadian History, I am a bit embarrassed to say that I certainly didn’t think that Canadians had this in them.

The “monarchy of the north” certainly isn’t something that exudes revolutionary sentiment- having been founded on such non-revolutionary principles as “Peace, Order and Good Governance” which have stood in stark contrast to the significantly more inspiring “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” enshrined in the founding documents of our southern cousins. Even our founding 1867 document (drafted over a champagne fueled month of hedonism in 1864) explicitly calls out the purpose of confederation not as a means of “supporting the general welfare” as was the case of the USA’s constitution in 1787, but rather “to promote the interests of the British Empire”.

But here it is.

Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a 1982 upgrade to the embarrassingly oligarchical British North America Act of 1867).

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an “insurrectionist movement” full of “white supremacists”, “Russian stooges”, and “Nazis” out to “overthrow the government”. Even the Bank of England’s former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that “this is sedition” and that “those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law”. Carney, the perennial financial darling of Goldman Sachs and the City of London (and Prime Ministerial hopeful) called for a targeting of all those who donated money to this domestic terror operation.

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada’s capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate. This shouldn’t be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal “rules-based” order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the “liberty” of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony. The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks come off and the raging tyrants show their true faces.

So instead of negotiation and discussion around principled constitutional issues as the protestors have requested, we have instead seen only threats, slander and more threats ranging from cutting off $10 million of funding raised on GoFundMe on February 4, and then another $8 million raised on GiveSendGo on February 10. We have seen the government impose a state of emergency first in the city of Ottawa followed by a full province wide state of emergency on February 11 justifying cutting off vital supplies of fuel to those truckers and their families who have been camped out in -22 degree Celsius temperatures. Edicts making it illegal to provide supplies to the protestors under threat of fines ranging up to $100,000 dollars and one year in prison have been drafted and the patriotic citizens who have organized for their right to not live under a dictatorship have been stigmatized by the media relentlessly as “insurgents”.

Emergency Measures Act invoked

Then on February 14, Justin Trudeau, followed by Deputy Prime Minister and WEF-Trustee Chrystia Freeland took turns announcing the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act which itself had formerly been known as “The War Measures Act” last invoked nearly 50 years earlier by Justin’s father Pierre Elliot Trudeau as a “solution” to the RCMP-directed terror cells deployed across Quebec and culminating in the month-long ‘October Crisis’ of 1970. The name was changed in 1988 although it is in function entirely identical.

Under the Emergency Measures Act, the Deep State of Canada managing Trudeau has adopted the Mark Carney program outlined on February 7 of targeting bank accounts of all Canadians either involved with the convoy directly or having supported the convoy via online donations or cryptocurrencies. What might those individuals suffer for the crime of having offered support or participation in the protests? Those ‘deplorable insurgents’ are facing the threat of seeing their bank accounts indefinitely frozen, and if they own businesses, having their insurance policies cancelled. The ‘big 5’ banks of Canada have thus been “deputized” and given full legal protections from being sued by those whose lives will be damaged by the shutdown of bank accounts.

One thing has become apparent thus far: the threats are not working with truckers and other protestors renewing their commitments to remain in place and even four Provincial Premiers (from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba) denouncing the emergency measures.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also loudly denounced the Act saying “the federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the emergencies act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: The act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes… Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously threatens the ability of the government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ and when the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.

Fissures Across the Establishment

Due to the inflexible Borg-like inability to negotiate with an organic civil rights movement suffered by all technocratic Davos-creatures, major fissures have begun to break throughout the political establishment of Canada.

Already two members of the Liberal Party have gone renegade breaking with Canada’s holy system of whips and loyalty to party above conscience demanding that Trudeau repeal the immensely unpopular and useless covid measures. On February 8, Liberal MP Joel Lightbound commented that Trudeau’s vile generalizations of the protestors have only served to “wedge divide and stigmatize” Canadians making the point that he has only seen a wide diversity of races attend the freedom convoy in Ottawa and across the provinces. One day later, a second Liberal MP Yves Robillard broke party ranks re-emphasizing his support for Lightbound’s statements and warned that many others within the party share these dissenting views and will soon speak out if changes are not effected soon.

In the Conservative Party, a coup of sorts took place on February 3 when opposition leader Erin O’Toole was ousted by his own caucus for sounding too much like a World Economic Forum ghoul and for the first time in over two years, an actual counter voice of opposition can be heard in the halls of parliament with demands by every single Conservative member of parliament to end the lockdown mandates and support the nation-wide protest movement.

On provincial levels, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI have announced a repeal of their covid mandates including vaccination passports, while Quebec has stepped back from the anti-vaccination tax which was threatened by Premier Legault until only a week ago.

Even NDP head Jagmeet Singh who had labelled all protestors white supremacists just a few days ago reversed his tune- perhaps due to the overwhelming presence of Sikhs in the federal and provincial convoys.

Freedom Convoy Nightmares for Technocrats in USA and Europe

Meanwhile the Biden Administration has given its full support to Justin Trudeau to use the full force of federal power to shut down the protests (conflagrating the blockade of US-Canada trade in Windsor and Manitoba as being tied directly to the Ottawa protests… which it isn’t).

Perhaps Biden is concerned that the example of the convoy has spread not only across nations of the Trans Atlantic Community and Five Eyes cage, but also to the USA itself where a parallel American freedom convoy will leave Southern California for Washington D.C. on March 5 involving tens of thousands of American truckers.

Former Obama Asst. Sec. of Homeland Security and frequent CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem delivered her disturbing comments to this festering problem which must be stopped at all costs saying: “Trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt: cancel their insurance; suspend their drivers licenses’ prohibit any future regulatory certification for truckers etc. Have we learned nothing? These things faster when there are no consequences”

How this process will unfold in the coming days and weeks is impossible to determine. The illusion of liberal democracy which fueled self-aggrandizing virtue signaling technocrats lecturing “bad” authoritarian states of Eurasia how freedom should work has collapsed.

One thing is certain.

Those tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers demanding the world to conform to their ideal post-nation state utopias are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights” which are inalienable to all citizens- even if they live under a monarchy.

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Public VAERS Data May Be Woefully Out of Date

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | February 15, 2022

In this short video posted on BitChute in December 2021, Brittany Galvin gives an overview of what she had to do in the previous six months to report her vaccine adverse events to VAERS. She begins by sharing that she has once again received an email asking for information on her VAERS report1 that was initially entered in May 2021.

VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System2 that was first established in 1990. It is coadministered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The system is supposed to be an early warning signal for vaccine manufacturers and health experts to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events. One of the primary objectives of the program is to:3

“Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”

Anyone can make a report to VAERS — both patients and health professionals can use this system to report health concerns they suspect may be connected to a vaccine. Health professionals are required to use it for all adverse events that occur after the COVID-19 emergency use shots, but since the system is passive, whether the reports actually get filed depends entirely on each individual living up to that responsibility.

The reports must contain all hospital records and any other relevant medical information. Unfortunately, as Galvin succinctly notes in her video, the system is not efficient, and the data may be woefully out of date. This has a significant impact on monitoring the effects of the COVID inoculation program since it’s possible the currently published death and adverse event rates may be reprehensibly different from reality.

Magnetized Mom Tries to Report Injury to VAERS

Galvin has created many social media videos to document her journey. This four-minute synopsis begins with her vaccinations in May and ends in November 2021. In June 2021, in an interview with Stew Peters4 during her third hospitalization in two weeks, Galvin recalls that after her first injection, she immediately experienced chills, fever and many of the symptoms that others are reporting.

In addition to this, within four to five hours after the first shot, her legs felt heavy, which she described as feeling like she was walking through mud or cement. The experience left her nervous before the second dose. She put off getting the second shot for as long as she could. While she experienced no immediate symptoms after the second injection, on Day 13 her life changed.

Initially, she thought she had a seizure but later learned that her muscles had suddenly “seized up.” She passed out and reported severe pain in her head when she regained consciousness. Originally, the doctors believe she had had either a stroke or a seizure.

She was sent home from the first hospitalization with a diagnosis of pericarditis but when her symptoms didn’t get better, she was admitted two more times. On the third admission in two weeks, a neurologist told her that she had Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) because of the Moderna injection. In addition, she was also diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Stew Peters comments that this was the first time he and others on his team had heard a doctor admit the adverse events were from a genetic therapy COVID-19 shot, yet Galvin reports that the physicians and nurses who treated her told her they had seen many patients with adverse events after the shots.5

Galvin reports the first question she was asked at each of the three ER visits was had she gotten a vaccine, when and which one? This suggests that health care officials and hospitals are aware of adverse events that are not reported in mainstream media.

She told Peters that she has never been against vaccines but didn’t want this one. She took it so she could go back to work. Instead of listening to her intuition, she listened to the shaming and the commercials that said if you didn’t have a vaccine you’d have to live differently. Now she wonders why all the people who have been concerned about people who died from the infection aren’t as concerned about dying from the vaccine.

Galvin’s social media page was originally filled with videos she had taken of herself, placing metal objects on her body that stuck because she was inexplicably “magnetized.” She reports that the doctors in the hospital have also placed metal objects on her skin and have seen with their own eyes that she is magnetized.

In addition, the MRI tech discovered that his body was also magnetized after seeing Galvin demonstrate how a spoon could attach to her body. As of January 2022, she is eight months into the reporting process to VAERS and has been advised by VAERS staff that it may be another six to 12 months before her case is posted.6

VAERS Has Only 50 People Processing Reports

Galvin has created several videos talking about the journey she’s been on trying to report her adverse events to VAERS. In a video posted in January 2022 on Odysee,7 Galvin recorded her phone conversation with an investigator from VAERS to discuss why her report filed in late May 2021 had not yet been counted in the system.

In one conversation she learned that the process takes many steps through different departments. The first stop for the VAERS reports is in a department with only 50 employees.8 Once the package of information is completed by this department, it is sent to a team of nurses who read and review every page.

If the staff have any concerns or if they feel they need more information, the package will be sent back to the first department for further information gathering.9 According to the recorded conversation, one investigator suggested that since anyone can make a report to the system, it’s possible there could be multiple reports for an individual and that this may be a reason why Galvin received multiple requests for information to complete her VAERS report.

And, that’s what did happen: There were two VAERS reports in the system for Galvin, one submitted by Galvin, and another submitted by Moderna. The VAERS report was still missing hospital information, which had been requested several times through the medical records department of the hospital. The VAERS investigator acknowledged that the reporting is a long process and explained:10

“The hospitals, a lot of them are not sending the records. My last two reports where they said, “We didn’t receive the requests.” Well, I’m like, OK, is this your fax number. “Yes, this is our fax number” … so, a lot of them are not sending the records when we ask for it.”

Galvin expressed her concern that there were hundreds of thousands of people like her and just 50 VAERS employees trying to process these reports. It could be months before the CDC receives the report of her vaccine injuries that can be published.11

“Meanwhile the whole government is trying to force everyone to get this thing. Lying to the people telling them that “no one has gotten GBS from it” but here I sit barely able to walk and my case isn’t going to be ‘technically’ reported because the CDC hasn’t investigated yet because the hospitals are dragging their feet … it’s like a revolving crazy door and all of us humans on this planet and in this country are being lied to, and it’s unfair.”

More Reasons Why Adverse Events Are Underreported

At the end of the conversation with the investigator, Galvin learned that while her report was filed in May 2021, it wasn’t assigned to someone at VAERS until September or November 2021.12 In addition to short-staffing at VAERS and hospitals dragging their feet to produce the documentation needed to support claims, there are other reasons why there is a significant underreporting factor in the system.

In the latter months of 2021, Deborah Conrad, certified physician assistant who worked as a hospitalist at a local hospital, stepped forward to speak to Del Bigtree at “The Highwire” about the lack of reporting to VAERS within her hospital. She also provided a voice recording of a conversation with the chief medical officer who chastised her for spending her time off to make the reports to VAERS for other physicians.13

The chief medical officer said: “There is a risk to the organization from a perspective of both underreporting and overreporting.”14 In other words, the lives of the patients were not the issue. And, despite the diligence done by VAERS investigators to ensure the reports are complete and accurate, the hospital must not overreport any injury.

It’s shocking that many physicians are still not aware of VAERS. Before 2020, the system was used primarily by pediatricians to report adverse events from childhood vaccines. Doctors were not educated on how to identify potential injuries, how to report them, or that they have a legal requirement to report all emergency use vaccine injuries.

In fact, this was one of the reasons used by Dr. Anne Schuchat, principal deputy director of the CDC, for pausing administration of the Johnson & Johnson jab when it was first revealed that individuals who took it had a higher risk of blood clots. She told ABC News:15

“One of the reasons for the pause was to make sure clinicians knew how to diagnose and treat this, but also to report it. Because we don’t know if we’ve missed some cases, whether the risk really is 1 in 1 million, or perhaps more than that.”

In addition to the lack of education, another reason why so few physicians report suspected injuries is because there are no penalties for failing to fulfill this legal responsibility. In other words, this passive reporting system is not enforced. As Conrad described in her interview with Bigtree, the forms are also long and tedious to fill out.16

Additionally, not all of Conrad’s colleagues agreed that the injuries should be reported because they didn’t want to believe that the vaccines could cause injury. Historically, vaccine injuries have been routinely underreported, even among pediatricians. A report published in late 2010, which has become known as the Lazarus Report after the principal investigator Ross Lazarus, found:17

“Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

More recently, a group of scientists used an engineering algorithm to determine the underreporting factor and found it had improved to 41, not less than 1% as had been reported 11 years earlier.18,19 This may be due in part to the media attention on VAERS. Nonetheless, there continues to be a significant underreporting factor indicating the numbers in VAERS20 are likely 41 times higher than published.

CDC and NIAID Imply Car Crashes Are Reported in VAERS

In addition to the underreporting factor and overworked VAERS employees that have created a large gap between the number of reports being submitted and the number being published, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky appear bent on completely discrediting VAERS.21

Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Walensky is the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since the CDC co-manages VAERS you would expect that she would have at least a working knowledge of how the reports are accepted and verified before being published.

During testimony January 11, 2022, before the Senate, both Fauci and Walensky very clearly stated that any death after a vaccine could be reported to VAERS. Both used the example of an individual who gets vaccinated, hit by a car and dies.

They implied without outright stating that this death would also be recorded in VAERS and logged as a death related to the vaccine. In other words, they both skirted the issue without outright lying to the Senate. Walensky said:22

“The vaccine adverse event reporting system is a mandatory system of any event that happens after being vaccinated. So, if you get hit by a car tragically after being vaccinated, that gets reported in the vaccine adverse event reporting system, the VAERS system.

So, the vaccines are incredibly safe. They protect us against omicron. They protect us against delta. They protect us against COVID. They don’t protect us against every other form of mortality out there.”

However, it’s evident not all medical professionals are reporting adverse events. Yes, you can report a car accident death after a vaccine, but the verification process will weed out that death.

Overall, the shots have not protected people from getting Omicron, Delta or any other form of COVID, which Walensky made clear in a CNN interview the day before testifying before the Senate.23 And, it goes without saying, that there is no shot that protects anyone from all forms of mortality.

Immediately after her response, Walensky was asked if the CDC kept data on the number of people who have died as a result of the vaccine. And she answered: “Absolutely yes. I couldn’t give you the number off the top of my head, but our staff could absolutely get back in touch with you.”

So, while publicly denying that any deaths have occurred from the jabs, Walensky is basically admitting that the CDC is aware that there have been people who died from this “incredibly safe” vaccine. Fauci was then asked if he knew the number or “had any clue on that, and he said:”24

“I don’t know the number, but I think part of the confusion is that when you do a reporting, when you get vaccinated, and you walk out and get hit by a car that is considered a death.

That’s the thing that gets confusing, that everything that happens after the vaccination, even if you die of something completely obviously unrelated, it’s considered a death. So, if I had metastatic cancer, got vaccinated and died two weeks later, that’s a death that gets counted.”

Fauci’s statement only implies that the death is counted as a vaccine death. That is, until his example of having metastatic cancer, when he says, “that gets counted.” Until that point, neither Fauci nor Walensky said it was anything more than a death. Meaning that they didn’t specifically say it would be recorded as caused by the vaccine.

When Fauci said “that gets counted,” Walensky immediately jumped in to save the explanation with, “And every one of those is adjudicated.”25 In other words, each of the reports of death not in any way associated with the shot are removed from the record. But unless you are listening carefully, you will mistakenly be led to believe that VAERS is riddled with reports of injuries and deaths not caused by the shot.

Sources and References

February 17, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Texas sues to unmask travelers

RT | February 17, 2022

Forcing Americans to mask up while traveling goes beyond what US health authorities are legally allowed to do, a new lawsuit coming from Texas argued on Wednesday, demanding the end of the mandate that has been in effect for over a year now.

Congresswoman Elizabeth Van Duyne (R-Texas) filed the lawsuit in a federal court on Wednesday, joined by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) nonprofit and the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton. The US government was named as the defendant, along with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and their leaders.

“It is time for all mandates to be lifted, including those affecting airline passengers,” Van Duyne said, accusing the CDC of causing “untold damage” to the US with its “constantly changing science, fluctuating recommendations and oppressive need to control all aspects of society.”

The lawsuit argues that the CDC’s mask mandates amount to an abuse of power and violate constitutional authority – the same reasoning used to successfully challenge the agency’s eviction moratorium in May 2021 and vaccination mandates for cruise lines in July.

“The CDC is relying on specific and narrowly tailored provisions in the law to exercise enormously broad powers Congress has not granted the agency,” said TPPF’s senior attorney Matt Miller. The organization’s general counsel Robert Henneke also denounced the “tyranny” of the Biden administration in the name of Covid-19.

Announcing that he joined the lawsuit, AG Paxton described the mask mandate as “anti-science, virtue-signaling” and called it “not only silly, but illegal too.”

In his very first executive order, President Joe Biden mandated the wearing of face masks on federal property and announced a “100-day masking challenge.” That was 392 days ago. The requirement that travelers on planes, trains, buses and other public transit must wear face coverings went into effect on February 1, 2021 and has been extended three times since. It is currently set to expire in March, unless renewed.

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UK approves vaccination for 5-11 year olds

with some odd decision making as to why

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | February 16, 2022

Today, England approved COVID-19 vaccinations for children aged 5 to 11 years old. Wales and Scotland had already done so earlier in the week so England’s approval was inevitable. Approval for children in this age category, who are in a clinical risk group, was already given on 22 December 2021.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have just published their independent report as to why the decision has been made.

Before I look at the report, I want to give a little background information.

In September 2021, before the Omicron variant (so a more virulent Delta was prevalent), the JCVI looked at whether to vaccinate healthy 12 to 15 years olds (those without underlying health conditions). They agreed a precautionary approach “given the very low risk of serious disease in those aged 12 to 15 years without an underlying health condition that puts them at increased risk. Given this very low risk, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced”.

They acknowledged that “there is increasingly robust evidence of an association between vaccination with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis”. They say that whilst myocarditis following vaccination is self-limiting and resolves within a short time, the medium to long-term prognosis (including the possibility of persistence of tissue damage resulting from inflammation) is uncertain.

The JCVI concluded that overall “benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms” but acknowledged “that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the potential harms. The margin of benefit, based primarily on a health perspective, is considered too small to support advice on a universal programme of vaccination of otherwise healthy 12 to 15-year-old children at this time. As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accrue, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms.”

So the conclusion for this older age group, on a health perspective, was not to vaccinate unless clinically vulnerable.

Fast-forward a few months, add in a more mild variant and suddenly the advice changes for an even younger age group. What has changed? Where is the longer-term data that allowed them to reconsider the benefits and harms?

From the outset of this latest advice, a cynical mind might think that they are trying to absolve themselves of all liability. The report uses lots of language such as “JCVI advises a non-urgent offer of two doses” and “informed consent”.

The report begins by saying that the “intention of this offer is to increase the immunity of vaccinated individuals against severe COVID-19 in advance of a potential future wave of COVID-19”. But concludes, “as the COVID-19 pandemic moves further towards endemicity in the UK, JCVI will review whether, in the longer term, an offer of vaccination to this, and other paediatric age groups, continues to be advised”.

So vaccination is advised to prevent severe Covid in a future wave but as we reach endemicity that future wave may never occur. It seems like this decision is based on modelling and we all know how accurate these models are at forecasting.

In summing up the key considerations they actually state the reasons why vaccination is unnecessary. “Most children aged 5 to 11 have asymptomatic or mild disease…[and] are at extremely low risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease. Of those admitted to hospital over the last few weeks comprising the Omicron wave, the average length of hospital stay was 1 to 2 days. A proportion of these admissions are for precautionary reasons”.

They continue “it is estimated that over 85% of all children aged 5 to 11 will have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of January 2022… Natural immunity arising from prior infection will contribute towards protection against future infection and severe disease.”

The report says the vaccination is “anticipated to prevent a small number of hospitalisation and intensive care admissions. The extent of these impacts is highly uncertain.”

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

If you’re American and oppose war with Russia, expect to be smeared as unpatriotic

By Lauren Chen | RT | February 16, 2022

On Tuesday, after weeks of international uncertainty and fears of conflict, Russia announced it would be pulling its troops back from the border with Ukraine. This news came after repeated assurances from President Vladimir Putin and officials that Moscow had no desire for war, and that troop movements and positioning were merely training exercises.

Markets immediately responded to this development with renewed optimism, as the Dow jumped 400 points, European stocks closed higher on Tuesday, and natural gas and power prices fell. However, one group curiously silent in light of the seemingly positive turn of events was the war hawks, goaded by Western media, intelligence, and politicians, who in the preceding hours had all but assured the public that an invasion and armed conflict were inevitable.

And while the establishment neo-cons and neo-libs may say that their hawkish warnings and preparations were simply the logical conclusion given the information available at the time, it’s important to remember that throughout the recent hysteria, there have been voices who attempted to pull back the mounting calls for war. However, rather than address their reasoning, the pro-war camp instead resorted to smears in order to justify their peculiar need to stoke tensions with another global superpower.

Specifically, in one attempt to contextualize the intelligence communities’ assurances that Russia’s troop actions were a build-up to aggression against Ukraine, Green Party member and former presidential candidate Jill Stein reminded her social media followers of how officials had not just been wrong about previous conflicts, but had actually lied to the public to garner support for action in Vietnam and Iraq, among other wars. Similarly, many of these same insiders had also been less than truthful about recent stories involving Julian Assange and Russiagate.

The general response to Dr. Stein’s post was positive overall, in keeping with polling which suggests the American public has no interest in involving their country in new foreign engagements. However, the reaction from the pro-war camp was to accuse Dr. Stein of being a Russian asset. Because, of course, what other reason could there be for someone to oppose costly military intervention based on shaky intelligence other than disloyalty to their own country?

And in this same vein, Tulsi Gabbard, another vocal anti-war advocate who has fiercely criticized interventionist American foreign policy, has also spent weeks warning of the conflicting interests motivating those banging the war drums. Often, as Gabbard has pointed out, officials who are most supportive of American military action overseas are also those who stand to gain monetarily through defense contracts and spending.

What’s more, Gabbard has even gone so far as to suggest that by encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, certain American actors might actually be trying to spark a new Cold War, not to benefit US security interests, but rather the military industrial complex. After all, historically, American policy has considered breaches in spheres of influence occurring in countries close to them, such as Cuba, to be acts of aggression. What makes Western encroachment in Ukraine any different?

As with Dr. Stein, however, sadly Gabbard’s criticisms were met with the usual accusations of being a foreign asset, with little to no attempt to address the actual substance of her position.

Across the aisle on the political right, one of the most prominent anti-war voices that has emerged is Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who has likewise been attacked for his views. Carlson has frequently devoted time on his program to questioning whether, regardless of Russia’s intentions, involving the US in Ukrainian affairs is in America’s best interests, especially at a time when domestic problems abound. Additionally, Carlson has been skeptical of political attempts to paint Ukraine as a Western-style democracy in order to garner public support for any potential alliances or interventions.

For his efforts, Carlson has received especially vicious condemnation from the likes of David Frum, who in 2003 accused those who were against military action in Iraq of being “unpatriotic.”  In a scathing article in The Athletic, Frum accused Carlson and others on the antiwar right of spouting “Vladimir Putin’s talking points,” and ironically likened his position to “isolationists who hoped to profit politically from that passivity.”

Russia’s troop withdrawal may have temporarily neutered the pro-war momentum building in Western discourse. However, the overt hostility toward those who argue against escalating tensions with Russia may signal that it’s only a matter of time before establishment forces are once more arguing that it is not just beneficiary, but rather necessary, for Western militaries to strike before Russian forces can do the same.

Lauren Chen is a political and social commentator. She began as a YouTuber, and has since gained millions of views on the platform and hundreds of thousands of followers.

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

FDA official reveals Biden plan for Covid jabs — Project Veritas

Even toddlers will eventually be required to get annual Covid-19 jabs, an FDA official said in the undercover clip

© Project Veritas

RT | February 16, 2022

Investigative outlet Project Veritas has released footage of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) executive claiming that annual Covid-19 vaccine jabs are on the way, even for children under five.

In part one of a two-part undercover video series, Christopher Cole, an executive officer with the FDA and head of the agency’s Countermeasures Initiatives, told a Project Veritas reporter he is involved in the “approval process for the various” Covid vaccines. In the video released on Tuesday, Cole claimed more jabs are in the pipeline for everyone and acknowledged the “money incentive” for companies like Pfizer to promote more vaccination.

“It’ll be a recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring… if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company,” Cole said of vaccine manufacturers. At another point in the footage, the FDA official also admitted that the very companies the FDA regulates dump “almost a billion dollars a year” into its budget.

Cole said even toddlers would be included in this annual shot requirement, though he conceded that there hasn’t been enough testing on the long-term effects of the vaccines on various groups, including young children and pregnant women. Asked how he knew such a mandate could be coming, he said: “Just from everything I’ve heard, [the FDA] are not going to not approve it.”

The annual jab would be “just like the flu shot,” Cole said, and required as the effectiveness of vaccines “wanes.”

The FDA released a statement responding to Veritas’ video on Wednesday, saying Cole “does not work on vaccine matters” and “does not represent the views of the FDA.”

US President Joe Biden has not endorsed an annual vaccine jab, but Cole said the president “wants to inoculate as many people as possible.” Biden’s health officials have also floated the idea of regular jabs. White House health adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci has been open in recent talks to the idea of booster shots being needed regularly, though he has not endorsed annual shots for everyone.

“It will depend on who you are,” he told the Financial Times last week. “But if you are a normal, healthy, 30-year-old person with no underlying conditions, you might need a booster only every four or five years.”

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The Jacinda Papers

By Guy Hatchard |  February 15, 2022

A remarkable trove of documents has been created in New Zealand by an organisation called Te Punaha Matatini—Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa hosted by the University of Auckland but funded directly by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is headed by the wildly inaccurate Covid modeller Dr Shaun Hendy who once predicted 80,000 imminent New Zealand deaths (currently at 53 in NZ) and includes the participation of academics from universities across New Zealand.

The documents are remarkable because they indicate the genesis of the unique and blinkered pandemic perspective of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern which has diverged from that followed among other countries and from that found in global science publishing.

The documents in some cases exhibit in their referenced material, a lack of awareness of the extensive content of global science publishing on the pandemic.

One paper of particular interest is entitled:

Evaluating the infodemic: assessing the prevalence and nature of COVID-19 unreliable and untrustworthy information in Aotearoa New Zealand’s social media, January-August 2020


https://cpb-ap-se2.wpmucdn.com/blogs.auckland.ac.nz/dist/d/75/files/2020/09/06092020-disinformation-formatted2.final_.pdf

It is hardly remarkable that the New Zealand government uses sophisticated computer systems to closely monitor the social media content of its citizens (what government doesn’t?), but the methods used and the starting point of evaluation are highly indicative of where the repressive and controlling New Zealand Labour government Covid policy began:

  • The paper accepts a number of controversial ideas as true at face value such as the zoonotic origin of Covid-19. It describes discussion of a bioengineered origin of Covid in a Chinese lab as Xenophobia and a conspiracy trope, when it actually was, at the time the article was published, a matter of general scientific debate.
  • Table 2 (excerpted above) designates some common types of scientific discussion around Covid-19 as ‘disinformation’, most of which were actually the subject of science publishing even in mid 2020. It dismisses them as fallacious without justification. Subsequent data analysis has upheld them in large part. Yet the rejection by Ardern of their moderating tone, was and is used to stoke fear in the whole population.
  • Concepts of herd immunity since found to play a highly significant role in reducing Covid severity are dismissed as oversimplification and misrepresentation despite their verified and time-honoured role in developing human immunity.
  • Assertions that Covid-19 disproportionately affects those already ill with comorbidities or the aged (a highly verified fact) are outrageously dismissed as the result of ableism.
  • Table 3 in the paper asserts additionally that suggestions that the vaccine might have adverse effects or may alter DNA is a conspiracy theory. Subsequently there have been over 1000 papers published worldwide examining the deficiencies in mRNA vaccination safety and adverse effects reporting including evidence published late in 2020 that RNA vaccine genetic sequences can and do integrate into the human genome.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.12.422516v1
  • Mainstream scientists like Dr. Simon Thornley, media personalities like Mike Hosking, and politicians including Gerry Brownlee are described as using conspiracy theories to recruit NZers to right wing causes. All of whom should rightly have been described as high profile public figures stimulating discussion around political and scientific policies affecting a complex subject. The attempt to marginalise Ardern’s political opponents is obvious.
  • The paper rejects health and wellbeing narratives, many of which are in fact grounded in mainstream medical advice, as misleading. Thus it specifically rejects self-care options. Yet prior and subsequent research has found many of these lifestyle and dietary options to be helpful if not critical to healthy Covid outcomes and avoidence of serious illness. These include adequate rest, exercise, a balanced diet, and nutritional supplements.
  • This rejection of the value of wellbeing programmes has found its obvious conclusion in the formation of New Zealand government mandates. Yet the paper describes the suspicion that there are hidden government agendas to introduce ‘forced vaccination regimes’ as an ‘opportunistic conspiracy theory’. As we now know, these suspicions voiced early on social media are almost indistinguishable from the actual oppressive New Zealand vaccination mandates which Ardern eventually introduced denying employment and impoverishing those wishing to avoid risk and continue to make their own medical choices.

The push to introduce the censorship of scientific information and discussion that characterises the Ardern government is evident throughout the paper. Specific individual scientists tied to the government by both ideology, and in some cases by financial support, are picked out as people who should be the public’s sole sources of reliable information. These include: microbiologist Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles, physicist Professor Shaun Hendy, and epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker.

The paper says the aim of government messaging should take the form of ‘branding’ designed to teach the public to trust the government alone. Something so close to propaganda as to be almost indistinguishable.

Emphasis in social media on ‘individual rights’ is described as an undesirable import from America. Ardern’s more recent rejection of protests as ‘imported ideas’ echoes Trudeau’s recent dismissal of protestors as ‘taking up space’, both of which hint at exclusionary agendas to come.

In conclusion the paper hints that ‘simply relying on the successful multi-faceted science and public health communication approaches of the government earlier in the pandemic will not be sufficient to debunk’ what it describes as ‘increasing prevalence of conspiracy theories about state control and individual rights’.

And continues:‘a wide-ranging response to the increasing discussion of unreliable sources, untrustworthy narrators, and conspiracy narratives in media, political, and civil society discourses is required’.

It further reports that a computational methodology and process for on-going monitoring of the prevalence of mis- and dis-information, and conspiracy narratives, within Aotearoa New Zealand’s social and mainstream media ecosystems has been established. It describes public access to a plethora of social media platforms, as a problem that needs to be addressed.

The very limited scientific outlook of Covid-19 Modelling Aotearoa is evident in the many other papers it has produced for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In particular, their narrative has diverged in content from trends now well-understood through published data analysis around the world, including:

  • The strident saturation advertising of Covid-19 mRNA vaccination referring to its absolute safety.
  • The Ardern doctrine that the government should be the public’s only source of information.
  • The confidence Ardern extends to tentative and often subsequently falsified science without feeling the need to update policy.
  • The encouragement the government has offered to social media sites to censor content.
  • The politicisation of NZ’s Covid-19 policy.

Obviously, the paper and others may have fuelled and validated Ardern’s limited understanding of science. Science is a global, rational, empirical endeavour to arrive at truth, not a process tailor-made to support ideology.

Perhaps its most frightening consequence is Ardern’s rejection of the notion of individual health rights which has obvious historical parallels.

Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID)

February 16, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »