Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Why Is Russia Still Collaborating With Countries That Are Actively Working to Destroy It?

By Edward Slavsquat | Anti-Empire | April 20, 2022

Close your eyes and imagine you’re Russia.

You’re scrambling to create an alternative financial system in order to bypass 100 gazillion sanctions.

At the same time, you’re formulating “global health” policies with the same countries that are actively trying to destroy your economy.

Something doesn’t quite add up here.

Imagine being Russia and implementing “health recommendations” from an organization funded by Germany, Bill Gates, the UK and the USA. And yet…

There is endless excitement about Russia’s imminent “economic sovereignty,” but what about Russia’s medical sovereignty? Does it matter if Russia adopts the golden petro-yuan (or whatever) if it continues to copy-paste “health measures” drafted by an organization that gets most of its funding from NATO states and Bill Gates?

It’s a serious question, especially because the WHO is forging ahead with its so-called “global pandemic treaty.” Slated for completion in 2024, the agreement will give the World Health Organization unprecedented powers to combat new outbreaks of positive PCR tests.

Does Russia really need this? After two years of the WHO’s non-stop virus scamming, maybe it’s time to pull the plug?

Thankfully, a grassroots campaign (aided by lawmakers) seeks Russia’s immediate withdrawal from the WHO. This is an excellent idea—but is it possible?

Russia’s unrepentant WHO-love

It’s fun to fantasize about loading Dr. Tedros into a Novichok cannon and launching him into outer space, but it’s not so simple. The World Health Organization has friends in high places. Some prominent WHO-lovers in the Russian government include:

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council: This guy is completely smitten with global “health” tyranny. In November, Medvedev whined about how the WHO lacked “the leverage to force states to pursue a single, coordinated policy at all levels” during a declared worldwide health emergency. Thankfully he offered a solution to this terrible conundrum:

It is necessary to think about giving WHO the authority to make significant mobilization decisions in the interests of the entire world community in an emergency situation (for example, during a pandemic). It is likely that in order for the WHO to obtain such authority, it will be necessary for the UN members to adopt an international convention on cooperation in this area.

There you have it: Medvedev has fully endorsed the idea of a pandemic treaty and wants Russia to submit to the WHO whenever there are too many positive PCR tests or other existential threats to public health. (It’s charming how over the last two months, Medvedev has endeavored to rebrand himself as a mighty crusader against the depraved West. Yes, he’s a true patriot.)

Mikhail Murashko, Health Minister: Okay, maybe Medvedev is an insufferable WHO groupie, but so what? He’s not in charge of health policy. That’s Murashko’s job:

Yikes.

Russia has agreed to participate in the creation of a pandemic treaty, but with the stipulation that any new agreement should not “duplicate” previous accords.

What does this mean, exactly? It’s open to interpretation and gives Russia room to maneuver. [It sounds to me like it means the new agreement should go beyond existing agreements.] That being said, Murashko can hardly be described as hostile to the WHO; on the contrary, he’s worked tirelessly to make Russia WHO-friendly. Unsurprisingly, Murashko is also an unapologetic advocate for digital cattle tags.

Tatyana Golikova, Deputy Prime Minister: Russia’s former health minister (2007-2012) is True Believer who has been heaping praise on the WHO for more than a decade. Over the past two years she’s been instrumental in ensuring Russia’s adoption of WHO-endorsed anti-health measures.

But there’s also been some finger-wagging. In May 2021, Golikova told the WHO it needed to “speed up” its procedure for approving new vaccines. Because public health.

Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow: In September 2020, Sobyanin thanked the WHO for inspiring him to impose a lockdown on Russia’s capital.

“I would like to express my gratitude to the World Health Organization, which from the first days of the pandemic has always informed the world community, both Russia and Moscow, about the processes that are taking place in different countries that were the first to be infected with COVID-19,” the mayor told Hans Kluge, the director of the WHO’s European Bureau.

Nine months later, Sobyanin became a trailblazer for compulsory vaccination and QR codes in Russia.

Cool WHO flag, bro.

Anna Popova, head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor): As Russia’s chief sanitary doctor, Popova has taken on the role of National COVID Nanny. Her penchant for arbitrary and useless “epidemiological” measures can be attributed in part to her devotion to the WHO.

In October, Popova supervised a WHO exercise held in Kazan that simulated the outbreak of an infectious disease.

Popova oversaw WHO-sponsored Virus Games in Kazan (source)

The Rospotrebnadzor chief said the simulation would be used to develop international standards for rapid response to “epidemiological threats” around the world.

Ungrateful Kazan residents protested against the WHO-sponsored Virus Games, apparently because they felt they were being used as guinea pigs (ridiculous!).

Russia’s upper management is basically completely A-Okay with the WHO. So, uh, who doesn’t like the WHO? We’re glad you asked…

The fellowship of anti-WHO Duma deputies

Russia’s parliamentarians are starting to ask: “Hey, why are we part of an organization that is almost entirely funded by hostile NATO members/Bill Gates?” Good question.

Pyotr Tolstoy, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma: Tolstoy has called for Russia to withdraw from the WHO as well as the World Trade Organization and UNESCO. According to the senior lawmaker, it was idiotic of Russia to join these esteemed US-dominated global bodies in the first place.

Yana Lantratova, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education: Lantratova believes Russia should suspend its cooperation with the WHO due to the organization’s links to biological laboratories in Ukraine.

“All of you know about the work of WHO around the world, it seems to me that interaction with this international organization in the current geopolitical situation does not meet the national interests of the Russian Federation,” she said last week. “Russia should suspend its membership in the WHO until the end of the parliamentary investigation. This will not affect on the health care system in Russia, but the fact that the organization has been collaborating for several years with biological laboratories created in Ukraine by American specialists cannot be ignored.”

Sergey Leonov, Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Health Protection: Although he opposes leaving the WHO, Leonov thinks Russia should stop paying membership fees.

“It is not entirely clear what benefit this organization brings to us,” the deputy said on March 30.

Sergei Mironov, parliamentary leader of A Just Russia — For Truth: Mironov and other members of his party recently introduced a draft resolution to the State Duma calling for Russia to suspend its membership with the WHO.

The proposed legislation would halt cooperation with the organization pending the results of a parliamentary investigation into the WHO’s dealings in Ukraine.

While lawmakers are focusing their rage on Ukraine-related WHO shenanigans, Russian activists have taken a more “big picture” stance: The World Health Organizations is actively destroying our health, and that’s bad.

“A direct threat to our national sovereignty”

What’s going on outside of the Duma chambers? Quite a bit.

A group of prominent Russian activists held a roundtable on April 14 to discuss how to safeguard Russia’s medical sovereignty. According to an excellent report from Katyusha.org, numerous participants called on Russia to withdraw from the WHO.

Anti-clot-shot crusader and conservative firebrand Alexandra Mashkova-Blagikh (whom your humble Moscow correspondent had the honor of meeting at the Doctors For Truth conference in December) gave a particularly rousing speech at last week’s event:

The WHO has been turned into an instrument of geopolitics. Whom it serves is clear if you look at its main sponsors: the USA, the Bill Gates Foundation, Germany, Britain… In the conditions of the war being waged against Russia, we cannot afford such a partnership. We are dealing with cultural, value, demographic and biological terrorism.

Now, under the pretext of the need to fight a “pandemic”, the WHO seeks to expand its power around the world through the Pandemic Agreement. This is a direct threat to our national sovereignty. It is obvious that this structure will never act in the interests of our country, and the time has come to withdraw from this organization. It is encouraging that serious politicians have started talking about this.

A coalition of activist groups has also issued an open letter calling for the removal of WHO-loving government officials (including many of the unsavory specimens we listed above).

What happens now?

A lot can happen in two years. What will the world look like in May 2024, when the pandemic treaty is scheduled for completion and ratification?

Probably we will all be eating bug-tacos in socially distanced quarantine camps as Triple-Ebola Swine Pox (a positive PCR test) ravishes the Earth.

If Russia wants to avoid this unpleasant future, it should probably not volunteer to be a “co-author” of any WHO-related treaty. Just to be on the safe side, Russia should exit this regrettable organization immediately. Today. Preferably right now.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , | Leave a comment

IMF to expedite $5 billion loan to Ukraine

Samizdat | April 20, 2022

Ukraine likely needs $5 billion a month in financial assistance to keep its economy operating and the immediate priority was finding ways to fill that gap in the next three months, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.

The Washington-based financial institution will start work on a future loan program, but it was “unfair” to expect Ukraine to implement a far-reaching package of reforms at the moment, Georgieva told a news conference on Wednesday.

On Sunday, Kiev requested $50 billion in financial support from the Group of Seven (G7) nations and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cover a budget deficit largely created by the military conflict with Russia.

Ukraine is also considering issuing 0% coupon bonds to bridge the fiscal gap, as the country is currently facing an estimated $7 billion deficit a month, according to Oleg Ustenko, the top economic adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The IMF and World Bank have approved more than $2 billion in loans to Ukraine since the beginning of Russia’s military operation in the country. Meanwhile, the World Bank said it was preparing nearly $1.5 billion in extra funds to allow essential Ukrainian government services to continue.

Over the weekend, Georgieva said “more [funds] would be necessary … to keep the economy functioning and prevent inflation shooting up.”

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , | Leave a comment

“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | April 19, 2022

The first public hearings on the proposed “Pandemic Treaty” are closed, with the next round due to start in mid-June.

We’ve been trying to keep this issue on our front page, entirely because the mainstream is so keen to ignore it and keep churning out partisan war porn and propaganda.

When we – and others – linked to the public submissions page, there was such a response that the WHO’s website actually briefly crashed, or they pretended it crashed so people would stop sending them letters.

Either way, it’s a win. Hopefully one we can replicate in the summer.

Until then, the signs are that what scant press coverage there is, mostly across the metaphorical back-pages of the internet, will be focused on making the treaty “strong enough” and ensuring national governments can be “held accountable”.

An article in the UK’s Telegraph from April 12th headlines:

Real risk a pandemic treaty could be ‘too watered down’ to stop new outbreaks

It focuses on a report from the Panel for a Global Public Health Convention (GPHC), and quotes one of the report’s authors Dame Barbara Stocking:

Our biggest fear […] is it’s too easy to think that accountability doesn’t matter. To have a treaty that does not have compliance in it, well frankly then there’s no point in having a treaty,”

The GPHC report goes on to say that the current International Health Regulations are “too weak”, and calls for the creation of a new “independent” international body to “assess government preparedness” and “publicly rebuke or praise countries, depending on their compliance with a set of agreed requirements”.

Another article, published by the London School of Economics and co-written by members of the German Alliance on Climate Change and Health (KLUG), also pushes the idea of “accountability” and “compliance” pretty hard:

For this treaty to have teeth, the organisation that governs it needs to have the power – either political or legal – to enforce compliance.

It also echoes the UN report from May 2021 in calling for more powers for the WHO:

In its current form, the WHO does not possess such powers […] To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.

It recommends the involvement of “non-state actors” such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organisation and International Labour Organisation in the negotiations, and suggests the treaty offer financial incentives for the early reporting of “health emergencies” [emphasis added]:

In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support. These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak.

It doesn’t stop there, however. They also raise the question of countries being punished for “non-compliance”:

[The treaty should possess] An adaptable incentive regime, [including] sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.

To translate these suggestions from bureaucrat into English:

  • If you report “disease outbreaks” in a “timely manner”, you will get “financial resources” to deal with them.
  • If you don’t report disease outbreaks, or don’t follow the WHO’s directions, you will lose out on international aid and face trade embargoes and sanctions.

In combination, these proposed rules would literally incentivize reporting possible “disease outbreaks”. Far from preventing “future pandemics”, they would actively encourage them.

National governments who refuse to play ball being punished, and those who play along getting paid off is not new. We have already seen that with Covid.

Two African countries – Burundi and Tanzania – had Presidents who banned the WHO from their borders, and refused to go along with the Pandemic narrative. Both Presidents died unexpectedly within months of that decision, only to be replaced by new Presidents who instantly reversed their predecessor’s covid policies.

Less than a week after the death of President Pierre Nkurunziza, the IMF agreed to forgive almost 25 million dollars of Burundi’s national debt in order to help combat the Covid19 “crisis”.

Just five months after the death of President John Magufuli, the new government of Tanzania received 600 million dollars from the IMF to “address the covid19 pandemic”.

It’s pretty clear what happened here, isn’t it?

Globalists backed coups and rewarded the perpetrators with “international aid”. The proposals for the Pandemic treaty would simply legitimise this process, moving it from covert back channels to overt official ones.

Now, before we discuss the implications of new powers, let’s remind ourselves of the power the WHO already possesses:

  • The World Health Organization is the only institution in the world empowered to declare a “pandemic” or Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).
  • The Director-General of the WHO – an unelected position – is the only individual who controls that power.

We have already seen the WHO abuse these powers in order to create a fake pandemic out of thin air… and I’m not talking about covid.

Prior to 2008, the WHO could only declare an influenza pandemic if there were “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” AND there was a new and distinct subtype. In 2008 the WHO loosened the definition of “influenza pandemic” to remove these two conditions.

As a 2010 letter to the British Medical Journal pointed out, these changes meant “many seasonal flu viruses could be classified as pandemic influenza.”

If the WHO had not made those changes, the 2009 “Swine flu” outbreak could never have been called a pandemic, and would likely have passed without notice.

Instead, dozens of countries spent millions upon millions of dollars on swine flu vaccines they did not need and did not work, to fight a “pandemic” that resulted in fewer than 20,000 deaths. Many of those responsible for advising the WHO to declare swine flu a public health emergency were later shown to have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers.

Despite this historical example of blatant corruption, one proposed clause of the Pandemic Treaty would make it even easier to declare a PHEIC. According to the May 2021 report “Covid19: Make it the Last Pandemic” [emphasis added]:

Future declarations of a PHEIC by the WHO Director-General should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted

Yes, the proposed treaty could allow the DG of the WHO to declare a state of global emergency to prevent a potential pandemic, not in response to one. A kind of pandemic pre-crime.

If you combine this with the proposed “financial aid” for developing nations reporting “potential health emergencies”, you can see what they’re building – essentially bribing third world governments to give the WHO a pretext for declaring a state of emergency.

We already know the other key points likely to be included in a pandemic treaty. They will almost certainly try to introduce international vaccine passports, and pour funding into big Pharma’s pockets to produce “vaccines” ever faster and with even less safety testing.

But all of that could pale in comparison to the legal powers potentially being handed to the director-general of the WHO (or whatever new “independent” body they may decide to create) to punish, rebuke or reward national governments.

A “Pandemic Treaty” that overrides or overrules national or local governments would hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria.

This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

CNN’s US Intel Source Just Admitted That Everything Zelensky Says Is Propaganda

By Andrew Korybko | One World Press | April 20, 2022

Ukrainian President Zelensky has been accused by his many critics across the world of spewing propaganda in every one of his many appearances, yet up until CNN’s surprising publication of an article on Tuesday, the US-led West condemned any such suspicions as so-called “Russian propaganda”. The “politically correct” narrative has suddenly changed, however, due to that outlet’s piece titled “What happens to weapons sent to Ukraine? The US doesn’t really know”. Partway through the text, CNN reported the following about US suspicions that Ukraine isn’t telling the whole truth about anything:

“’It’s a war — everything they do and say publicly is designed to help them win the war. Every public statement is an information operation, every interview, every Zelensky appearance broadcast is an information operation,’ said another source familiar with western intelligence. ‘It doesn’t mean they’re wrong to do it in any way.’”

This jaw-dropping disclosure amounts to a complete reversal of the prior narrative whereby it’s no longer so-called “Russian propaganda” to accuse Zelensky of spewing propaganda but is now reportedly the unofficial position of none other than the US government itself. Not only that, but this is supposedly something that should even be praised, not condemned. That new narrative builds upon the one introduced by NBC News earlier this month when it quoted unnamed US spies who openly admitted to waging information warfare against Russia, including through the spread of fake news speculation.

All of this might understandably be too much for the average Western information consumer to process, which is why the purpose of this piece is to explain the emerging cognitive warfare trend that’s on display in this context. The US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) is clearly on the defensive after it became impossible to deny that Zelensky is spewing propaganda in literally every one of his many appearances according to CNN’s own US intel source on the matter. Doubling down on the false narrative that he’s an “innocent truth-teller” is counterproductive since folks don’t trust him anymore.

For that reason, the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) felt compelled to enact a drastic change in the official narrative by allowing some of these shadowy officials to anonymously speak to CNN in order to recalibrate their perception management operations. Instead of desperately clinging to their discredited narrative, they sought to radically change it through the so-called “limited hangout” tactic of admitting something unsavory (in this case that all the Ukrainian leader does is spew propaganda) but then spinning it into something positive.

By giving some credence to the suspicions of their increasingly skeptical audience who’ve largely realized by now that Zelensky can’t be trusted after he’s gone so overboard with his rhetoric during his many appearances as of late, they hope to strategically disarm their target by getting their guard down so that they swallow the second part of the “deep state’s” amended narrative related to why “it doesn’t mean that [he’s] wrong to do it in any way.” This conforms to the trend first introduced by NBC News whereby Americans are now supposed to expect propaganda in the media, not condemn it.

The unofficial acknowledgement of “deep state” meddling in the US media from NBC News’ sources and the praise that CNN’s intel source just lavished upon Zelensky for the lies that this individual candidly admitted he spews during all of his appearances are meant to precondition the targeted Western audience into appreciating that which they’d otherwise have condemned as contrary to their country’s values, especially that which concerns the supposed integrity of their media. That said integrity has long been gone, however, which is why it was way overdue for the “deep state” to finally flip the narrative.

Observers should remember that this is only being done because the population at large is awakening to how maliciously they’ve been misled by the so-called “fourth estate” through its collusion with the “deep state” and foreign officials like Zelensky, whose words they hitherto passed off as truth without any second thought and condemned those who questioned him as “Russian propagandists”. Big data analytics have evolved to the point where “deep state” structures can very easily assess the pulse of their targeted audience and thus get a sense of their true sentiments towards whatever it might be.

Considering the radical revision of the official narrative that just took place in less than a few weeks’ time through NBC News and CNN’s seemingly coordinated “revelations” about media meddling, it can confidently be concluded that this was done in response to the “deep state” realizing that it absolutely had to undertake this course of action lest its targeted audience soon lose all trust in its media proxies. For that reason, this should be seen as an unprecedentedly desperate move that has no precedent in American history, which speaks to the population’s similarly unprecedented distrust of the media.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Most people are wrong about most things, most of the time

Brief thoughts about thinking

eugyppius | April 20, 2022

Most people are wrong about most things. This is especially true of the people who are brought to your attention by newspapers and television. It doesn’t matter how smart they are, or how well-read, or how thoroughly educated. There aren’t very many fields of endeavour where you can get ahead on the sheer strength of being right. Our expert classes succeed instead by cultivating the correct allies, publishing the right papers in the right journals, working on the right problems, winning the right grant funding, and making the right friends. People who enjoy these trivialities are precisely the people for whom being right is not a priority.

Above all, experts prefer to work within and propagate safe, consensus positions. This is because they have primarily careerist goals, which are best pursued secure from the criticism of colleagues. Being wrong is not nearly so important as seeming wrong, which can cost you promotion. Once you realise that experts are little more than consensus-establishing and -propagating professionals, statements about what the science says or what the literature shows acquire a totally new meaning.

Forget, then, about expert opinion. There is no substitute for doing your own research. In everything that matters to you, you must consider the actual theories that are presented to you for yourself. And, particularly in areas of limited evidence, you’ll be less interested in which theories are wrong (though that matters too), than in the subtler problem, of which theories are more or less probable than the alternatives.

Most of the theories that are put about, are not really theories at all. They are, instead, arguments, designed to justify or advocate for specific policies. Arguments are not genuine attempts to understand anything; they are attempts to convince other people to think in a certain way.

People assemble arguments like they would a house. They develop a program (the plan), collect evidence in favour of this program (the materials), and finally they present their program with all the evidence adduced in neat footnotes (the construction). This approach is reasonable enough, if all you want to do is persuade, but if you want to understand how a given model of reality fares against others, it is the wrong way.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Russia accuses OSCE of ‘spying’ for Ukraine

Samizdat | April 20, 2022

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) collaborated with the Ukrainian government in its fight against the Donbass republics and tried to cover up offences by Ukrainian nationalist forces, Russia’s deputy representative to the UN told a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday.

The accusations came as Dmitry Polyansky blasted Western powers, saying they were being hypocritical regarding the security crisis in Ukraine. The US and its allies pursue their own selfish interests rather than the interests of the Ukrainian people, when they fan hostilities in the east European country, the diplomat said.

“We obtained the latest proof of how dirty your tricks are in building a ‘rules-based order’ when we discovered proof that the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine simply spied for Kiev instead of recording violations of the ceasefire,” he claimed. The official said Russia was collecting more evidence to make the case against the monitors.

Polyansky made more allegations as he brought up the seizure of official OSCE vehicles by Ukrainian nationalist troops in the city of Mariupol. He said there were reports that eight cars, some of them armored, were taken by the Ukrainians at gun point. One of them was later filmed with clear signs of use in battle. Similar reports came from other places in eastern Ukraine, he said.

“The OSCE leadership was aware of the problem, but they chose to hush up this fact as long as it could,” the Russian official claimed.

He added that such discoveries “undermined trust in international organizations where Western officials play a dominant role.” This lack of trust makes Moscow question any calls for a humanitarian ceasefire in Ukraine coming from the West, the official said.

“In practice, [the calls] demonstrated a desire to give Kiev nationalists and radicals a pause to regroup, receive new shipments of drones, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and stage more inhumane provocations to spread lies about the actions of Russian soldiers,” Polyansky said.

Russia will differentiate between “pseudo-peacemaking” and genuine attempts to “help Ukraine take the long-necessary right decisions,” he said.

The OSCE was invited to Ukraine to monitor the situation in the country in March 2014, shortly after an armed coup in Kiev triggered a spike in tensions in the east. The Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) became a crucial tool in observing a truce between government forces and rebels, which was listed as the first part of the roadmap to peace set in the so-called Minsk agreements. OSCE monitors patrolled the disengagement line to check whether deployments of forces by the warring parties complied with the deal and to report any violations of the ceasefire.

The field mission was the biggest in the organization’s history, with as many as 814 international and 477 national staff involved and over 2,400 daily reports produced in eight years.

The mission’s mandate expired on March 31, with Russia opposing its extension. Moscow accused the OSCE of pushing Russian representatives out of the SMM even as the number of observers was increasing.

As he explained the country’s decision to withdraw its participation and funding, the Russian representative at the organization, Aleksandr Lukashevich accused the OSCE of taking Kiev’s side in treating the two Donbass republics as “a territory under control of some terrorists,” and virtually refusing to coordinate with them.

Last week, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics decided to ban OSCE monitors on their respective territories starting April 30. Both are investigating allegations of espionage by members of the mission. The government in Lugansk reported arresting two OSCE employees suspected of treason. Russia is conducting its own criminal investigation of the espionage claims.

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , | Leave a comment

Will Sweden and Finland feel safer after joining NATO?

By Drago Bosnic | April 20, 2022

NATO expansion has been the main culprit behind all instability in Europe for the last 30+ years. Of course, NATO’s aggression against many countries, either as an organization, or separately, by each of its member states resulted in the deaths of millions, with orders of magnitude more of those whose lives may not have been physically lost, but they certainly have been ruined by the Alliance’s actions. The absolute havoc and the trail of death and destruction left in the wake of NATO invasions across the Middle East, always euphemistically dubbed “humanitarian interventions“, stand as a grisly testament to that.

The expansion of this supposedly “defensive alliance” which has not conducted a single truly defensive operation in well over 70 years of its existence, has first destroyed the relatively prosperous Yugoslavia, which was subjected to nearly a decade-long siege throughout the 1990s. During the 2000s, Russia’s attempts to create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance have been futile. No matter what Russia did, the alliance kept creeping closer to its borders. By the early 2010s, it was clear that NATO had no intention of stopping. The conflict in Ukraine is NATO’s latest brainchild, although there has hardly been any actual thinking behind it. It has been more like bulldozing its way towards Russia.

The last 8 years have shown where all this leads to, with the last nearly 2 months reaching a boiling point between the Russian Federation and the ever increasingly belligerent alliance. A recent announcement by both Sweden and Finland that they feel supposedly “threatened” and that they are very likely to enter NATO seems rather strange, especially given that they did not officially join NATO during the Cold War, when the USSR had undisputed control over the Baltic region.

An obvious question arises, why would Sweden and Finland feel threatened now, when the strategic situation has all but reversed, with Russia’s presence in the Baltics limited to relatively tiny areas around Saint Petersburg and Kaliningrad? It’s quite obvious that this can only be seen as another encroachment on Russia’s borders, another part of NATO’s larger geopolitical offensive. Still, although it may seem that NATO’s further expansion into Scandinavia is going to jeopardize Russia’s northwestern areas, Russia doesn’t seem particularly fazed by this prospect. While certainly not happy with this turn of events, Russia’s decision makers and strategic planners aren’t exactly pulling their hair out and running in circles over this.

First, it should be understood that both Sweden and Finland are neutral countries in name only. During the Cold War, both Scandinavian countries served as a hotbed of NATO intelligence activities, with the CIA and MI6 operating extensively in both countries. Soviet and later Russian intelligence were well aware of this.

During the 1990s, this became even more prominent, when both countries entered the EU, but also increased their official cooperation and interoperability with NATO. Naturally, over the years, this cooperation grew to unprecedented levels and the Russian military acted accordingly. The strategic military command structures in the Kremlin have treated both countries as de facto NATO member states for decades.

This is especially true for Finland, particularly after it announced it will be acquiring at least 65 F-35A fighter jets from the US military industrial giant Lockheed Martin. This jet, despite hundreds if not thousands of critical flaws and other shortcomings, is a serious ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) asset. The jet is bristling with sensors, all of which are connected to a massive network-centric warfare system, the center of which is located in the Pentagon. By operating this jet, Finland is effectively giving up on the sovereignty over its own air force and ceding it to the United States.

The Russian military is perfectly aware of this and has already made plans to react accordingly. Earlier, Finland’s official neutrality from a military standpoint complicated this. But now, rather ironically, the Scandinavian country might even make things easier for Russia’s strategic military planning by joining the ever expanding “defensive” alliance.

However, does this change anything for Finland and Sweden? Will NATO really make both countries safer? The short answer is simply no. By joining the North Atlantic Alliance, countries effectively cede much of their sovereignty to the US. Given the US’ strategic obsession with encircling Russia, the Kremlin feels strongly about this matter and it simply doesn’t take any chances.

Thus, the only “benefit” Sweden and Finland get is becoming meat shields for the US in the case of a nuclear exchange, because Russia is simply going to dedicate a portion of its thermonuclear arsenal to these countries. And if Russia doesn’t have a shortage of something, it’s nuclear weapons. Given the US’ and NATO’s track record, who is to blame then?

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment

Russia extends Mariupol surrender offer

Samizdat | April 20, 2022

Russia’s Defense Ministry has extended the offer to surrender for the remaining Ukrainian forces holed up at the Azovstal steel plant in the Black Sea port city of Mariupol after they refused to leave through a humanitarian corridor on Tuesday.

Those present at the location may still exit the facility from 14:00 Moscow time on Wednesday without any arms or ammunition on them, officials said in a statement late on Tuesday.

“The Russian leadership guarantees the preservation of life, complete safety and provision of qualified medical assistance to all those who lay down their arms,” it said.

The country has proven its humane attitude towards surrendering Ukrainian troops on numerous occasions during the conflict and this time the term of the Geneva Convention on POWs will also be fulfilled, the ministry insisted.

To be able to leave the steel plant, the Ukrainian commanders inside were told to establish uninterrupted radio contact with the Russian forces, cease all hostilities and raise white flags along the perimeter of Azovstal.

The offer to lay down arms given to “militants of nationalist battalions and foreign mercenaries” is being repeated despite “the absence of any elementary steps from the Kiev authorities aimed at saving their country’s servicemen,” the statement read.

Members of the notorious Azov battalion were already given a chance to surrender on Sunday and Tuesday but didn’t take up the offer on both occasions.

Intercepted communications from Azovstal, suggest that the Ukrainian commanders “realize the hopelessness of their situation and are ready to lay down their arms, but only on the appropriate command (order) from Kiev,” which Ukrainian authorities are refusing to give, the ministry insisted. Surrendering without government approval may see them court martialed, with sentences of capital punishment possible, it added.

Moscow described such actions by Kiev as a “betrayal of the Ukrainian servicemen and members of nationalist battalions,” and again urged it to “show common sense, give appropriate instructions to the fighters to stop senseless resistance and exit through humanitarian corridors.”

If such an order isn’t made by the Ukrainian leadership once again, the commanders or ordinary servicemen should themselves make the decision to lay down their arms to survive, it added.

The strategic city of Mariupol has seen the heaviest fighting during the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, suffering immense destruction. It’s now almost entirely controlled by Russian forces, with Azovstal remaining the last pocket of Ukrainian resistance.

Those holed up at the steel plant, with its massive network of underground tunnels, have been running short of water and food, the Defense Ministry had said earlier, based on intercepted communications.

According to Russia’s estimates, Ukraine’s losses in Mariupol have reached some 4,000 combatants, including nationalist fighters of the notorious Azov and Aidar regiments, and “foreign mercenaries.”

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Militarism | , | Leave a comment

WHO WHISTLEBLOWER ASTRID STUCKELBERGER ON THE WHO’S ‘PANDEMIC TREATY’

Alternative Media | April 14, 2022

Astrid Stuckelberger is an international health scientist with more than 25 years of experience behind her.

But the part I like is that she has also worked for the World Health Organisation (WHO) for many years, and has an intricate understanding of how the organisation operates.

She joined me for a truncated conversation about the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty and why it is extremely dangerous for everybody.

Her referenced document can be found at my website: https://jermwarfare.com/support-my-work

April 20, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Net zero – a grim fairy tale

By Dr Deborah Ancell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022

Dear Prime Minister

What would convince you that your ‘net zero carbon’ strategy is a fairy tale?

Let’s go back to basics. Carbon dioxide (CO2) (not ‘carbon’) is not a pollutant. It’s a trace gas and essential for life. Only 5 per cent of CO2 is man-made and largely through burning fossil fuels; the other 95 per cent is natural from sources such as oceans or volcanoes. More than 450million years ago (long before mankind arrived) it was 5,000 parts per million (ppm). It’s currently about 420 ppm with the anthropogenic share at 20 ppm, in other words minuscule! There is no known harm from CO2. Consequently, there is no enemy to fight to attain ‘net zero’; no need for expensive offset schemes to mitigate its purportedly harmful effects; no need to cover the land in environmentally damaging and unsightly solar farms or wind turbines (your ‘white Satanic mills’). Neither of these alternative energy sources has recyclable parts. Birds mistake solar farms for lakes and fry as they land. Offshore windfarms kill birds and the incessant hum is believed to disorient cetaceans. Onshore, where the hum drives sane people to distraction, they kill birds, bats and insects. Discounted energy bills will not compensate for this destruction.

Restricting CO2 increase to pursue <2oC temperature rise by 2050 has no evidential basis. Even its inventor (Germany’s Chief Scientific Adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, climatologist and member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that the aspirational constraint is a ‘political goal’. The IPCC is the body ‘polishing’ the UN’s climate reports to ensure they continue the drama of ‘climate emergency’ (or some such doomsday title). Actually, temperature increases precede CO2 rises by 800 years and the residence time for CO2 is unknown – any time from four to 1,000 years. The outcome of any economic pain you inflict now will not be visible for almost a millennium (when it will be too late to say ‘I told you so’).

Your baffling hyperbole that ‘we were the first to knit the deadly tea cosy of CO2 that is now driving climate change’ is unevidenced. Anthropogenic atmospheric gases are not analogous to a ‘tea cosy’.  Similarly, the belief that increased CO2 will be detrimental to Planet Earth is baseless when gardeners pump extra CO2 into greenhouses to encourage growth. In fact, a slight warming accompanying increased CO2 should deliver a positive impact improving agricultural output. (This will be desirable given the inevitable failure of Ukraine’s 2022 crops.) Increased warming should also reduce winter heating costs (something you favour).

Governments want populations to reduce energy consumption to match restricted supply. However, demand is increasing because of the expansion of innovative, energy-hungry technologies (including the electric vehicles of which you are so supportive). This foretells a worsening supply squeeze which will increase energy prices (yes, be prepared).

In contrast, the much-derided fossil fuels currently blamed for increased CO2 have many environmental benefits. These include saving whales from extinction (blubber no longer needed as candle fuel), improved hygiene (hot water!) and streets freed from dung-borne diseases resulting from equine transport. We don’t want to return to the 18th century. Fossil fuels have delivered us to the life we have today and until we have sufficient substitutes, should continue to do so. However, fossil-fuel energy companies are now apologists for their products. They are hobbled by governments in thrall to increasingly vocal lobbies which cannot distinguish between anthropogenic and natural CO2.

Irrespective, finance houses pushing the concept of a purportedly ‘warming planet’ are using ‘green’ anti-CO2 criteria in their corporate lending risk and planning. Their endgame is to avoid investment in fossil-fuelled industries as their contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. Choking energy investment is detrimental to economic growth. As commercial enterprises they are usurping the role of democratically-elected governments and deciding suicidal energy policies at a distance (follow the money).

CO2 is not our enemy. With no enemy, we have no need to fight. The pursuit of distant ‘net zero’ resembles fraud on a massive, taxpayer-subsidised scale. So, given that it has no evidential basis, how can you justify your strategy?

Next time you meet Greta Thunberg, ask her two questions: ‘What percentage of CO2 is anthropogenic?’ and ‘How do we tame Mother Nature’s 95 per cent?’ This should finish the fairy tale.

Sincerely

Deborah Ancell

April 19, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

The scandalous absence of child vaccine damage information

By Kathy Gyngell | TCW Defending Freedom | April 19, 2022

We have repeatedly referred at TCW to the studied silence of the mainstream media regarding the damage and fatalities associated with the Covid vaccines despite reported reactions (which may be only 10 per cent of the total), now standing at 1,480,307, and nearing the one and half million mark. Fatalities, too, continue their inexorable rise, a further sixteen deaths reported since the end of March, their total now 2,087. For full reports of vaccine adverse effects and events including 352 pages of specific reaction listings, see here. 

What is worse, perhaps, than the MSM’s general state of denial is their unconcern about the shocking paucity of the child adverse reaction data published by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Authority (MHRA). Yet under-18s have been actively encouraged to have the vaccine since the end of July 2021 in the absence of any long-term safety data and despite clear indications that younger ‘fertile’ age cohorts were proving more vulnerable in multiple respects to the vaccine. However no special monitoring system for children has been set up,  or none that has been reported. Unlike its Yellow Card reporting involving adults, the MHRA does not break down the child numbers into specific adverse events, as though children were of less importance. As a result we have no way of knowing whether the reports relate to any major, life-changing side-effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (muscle weakness caused by the immune system attacking the body’s nerves) or Bell’s palsy (a type of facial paralysis) or to other serious side-effects reported by adults including seizures, nervous system disorders, deep vein thrombosis, menstrual disorders, and eye and ear disorders including blindness and deafness.

With the extension of the vaccine rollout to young children aged between five and 11 since the beginning of April, we have decided it is high time to highlight what is known and not known, what is reported and not reported, about the risk to children of this experimental gene therapy.

Nearly 3.5 million children (3,413,500) have already been injected, with a total dosage (1st, 2nd & boosters) of 5,626,100 jabs, and a total number of 3,735 adverse reaction Yellow Card reports. Data published by the MHRA on Thursday April 14 details:

·         Pfizer – 3,400,000 children (1st doses) plus 2,000,000 second doses & 200,000 boosters resulting in 3,424 Yellow Cards

·         AZ – 11,600 children (1st doses) plus 8,700 second doses & ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 263 Yellow Cards – Reporting rate 1-in-44

Note: 1,500 doses (1,000 children – 1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting

·         Moderna – 1,900 children (1st doses) and 1,400 second doses and 2,500 boosters resulting in 24 Yellow Cards

Note: 200 children (1st doses) removed from last two weeks reporting

·         Brand unspecified – 24 Yellow Cards

Unaccountably it appears that the number of 1st doses (1,000 for AZ and 200 for Moderna) and 2nd doses (500 for AZ) recorded has decreased since two weeks ago. Hence 1,200 children recorded as vaccinated two weeks ago are now missing. No explanation has been given for this. I understand that the MHRA is now on holiday for two weeks so we are unlikely to get any clarity on this until May.

Note too that AstraZeneca which is not recommended for under 18s appears to have been continued. MHRA reports to April 6 2022 show that 11,600 children (up from 11,496 last October) have received one or more doses of AstraZeneca, resulting in an increased Yellow Card adverse event reporting rate of 1 in 44 children (up from 1 in 49 last October). This, shockingly, is counter to the government’s own official guidance and evidence which has been available for patients and healthcare professionals, most recently updated on January 26 2022:

‘COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is not recommended for children aged below 18 years. No data are currently available on the use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents younger than 18 years of age.’  Yet the most recent MHRA publication says:

‘The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in children and adolescents (aged <18 years old) have not yet been established. No data are available.’ 

So why and to which children were these doses given? To vulnerable children prior to the main rollout? And why second or booster doses? Furthermore, whoever they are, are the 263 adversely impacted children receiving adequate care and support? Are the other children who received the AZ vaccine being checked?

Myo/pericardial effects in children

The only specific adverse effects data that has been published for children is 73 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis (inflammation of the heart) in under-18s. This is worrying not least because of the rising and unexplained death toll in young men reported elsewhere in these pages, but also 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; a risk which the NHS has warned as being especially the case ‘in young men under the age of 40‘.

Other adverse effects

This still leaves the bulk of 3,735 Yellow Card Reports up to this week for under-18s uncategorised.  Yet MHRA themselves state that ‘the experience reported in under-18s is similar to that identified in the general population’. If we take them at their word, extrapolating from the data published on suspected adverse effects in the adult population, children and young people, are experiencing a selection of the following:

·         Lymph node pain and swelling

·         Heart palpitations and fluttering

·         Fever, chills, fatigue and malaise

·         Ear pain, tinnitus and vertigo

·         Nausea, vomiting and allergies

·         Eye pain, swelling and photophobia

·         Blurred vision and visual impairment

·         Diarrhoea, abdominal pain and distension

·         Lip, mouth and facial swelling

·         Pain in arm, chest, bones and jaw

·         Anaphylaxis

·         Respiratory infection, influenza and herpes

·         Joint and muscle pain, swelling and stiffness

·         Muscle spasms and twitching

·         Balance disorders and arthralgia

·         Fainting and dizziness

·         Facial palsy, headaches and migraines

·         Skin sensations, burning and numbness

·         Seizures and tremors

·         Anxiety, depression and insomnia

·         Confusion and disorientation

·         Kidney pain and hair loss

·         Breast pain and menstrual disorders

·         Breathlessness, wheezing and coughing

·         Sweating, blisters, rashes and itching

·         Haemorrhages (all types) and nosebleeds

·         Embolisms and thrombosis

Given the lack of information published as to the adverse effects experienced by the 3.4 million children injected thus far, we have to ask whether their consent was truly informed? The answer has to be no, it was not.

Worryingly there are a number of potential barriers to reporting adverse effects in children. These include:

·         Child or parental failure to recognise symptoms as vaccine-related

·         Fear of parents of not being believed or thought to be anti-vax or of ‘making a fuss’

·         Lack of understanding of potential longer-term issues

·         Healthcare professionals’ lack of awareness of vaccine adverse effects

·         Young people not seeking help and support especially if they took the vaccine decision themselves

·         Yellow Card system awareness and accessibility

Furthermore, if the 3,735 Yellow Card Reports for under 18s is less than 10 per cent of actual figures as the MHRA indicates may be the case, in the absence of long-term safety data, how can the child vaccine rollout possibly be justified, deemed safe or ethical? Why was post vaccine monitoring not insisted on?

This weekend the Sunday Times reported a scandal that Jeremy Hunt, the former Health Secretary, claimed to be worse than thalidomide. He was not however addressing the reckless child Covid vaccine rollout but a deeply shocking investigation into child deformities caused by an epilepsy drug still being given to pregnant women that should have been stopped years ago. Hunt said that while it was ‘never comfortable’ for governments to acknowledge such injustices, the state had a moral duty to the families. ‘It’s time the British state faced up to its responsibilities,’ he said. ‘Just as we eventually did to victims of the thalidomide scandal.’

These are words we need to hear him speak about the Covid vaccines.

I pray that he and this newspaper, which tenaciously and courageously fought for the victims of thalidomide, will not stay blind to the scandal that is happening on their watch; or let years go by before they retrospectively struggle to examine the multiplicity of harms, some of which we may not know till they reach maturity, that children have been needlessly subjected to by the experimental Covid vaccines.

April 19, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »