Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Russia’s attempt to reshape the world economy

By Ramzy Baroud | MEMO | June 8, 2022

Starting on 31 May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov embarked on a tour of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, where he visited Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), among others. Lavrov’s main objective of these visits is to strengthen ties between Russia and GCC nations amid a global race for geopolitical dominance.

The Middle East, especially the Gulf region, is vital for the current global economic order and is equally critical for any future reshaping of that order. If Moscow succeeds in redefining the role of Arab economies vis-à-vis the global economy, it would most likely succeed in ensuring that a multipolar economic world takes form.

The geopolitical reordering of the world cannot simply be achieved through war or challenging the West’s political influence in its various global domains. The economic component is possibly the most significant of the ongoing tug of war between Russia and its Western detractors.

Prior to the Russia-Ukraine war, any conversation on the need to challenge or redefine globalisation was largely confined to academic circles. The war made that theoretical conversation a tangible, urgent one. The US, European and Western support for Kyiv has little to do with Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence and everything to do with the real anxiety that a Russian success will demolish or, at least, seriously damage the current version of economic globalisation as envisaged by the US and its allies.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the world was no longer a contested space between two military superpowers – NATO vs Warsaw Pact – and two massive economic camps – US vs USSR. We often speak about the US invasion of Panama (1989) and the war in Iraq (1990) to demarcate the uncontested US ascendency in global affairs. What we often omit is that the military and geopolitical component of this war was accompanied by an economic one.

As Panama and Iraq were meant to demonstrate US military dominance, the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1994-5 was meant to illustrate Washington’s economic outlook in this new world order.

Though unprecedented in their scale and ferocity, the anti-WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 seemed like a desperate attempt to reverse the alarming trend in the world’s economic affairs. Though successful in demonstrating the power of civil society at work, the protests failed to produce any real, lasting outcomes. In the US/Western-centred definition of globalisation, smaller countries had little bargaining power.

While rich countries successfully negotiated many privileges for their own industries, much of the Global South was left with no option but to play by the West’s rules. The US spoke of free trade and open markets while maintaining a protectionist agenda over what it perceived to be key industries. Globalisation was branded a success story for freedom and democracy, while, in essence, it was a cheap reproduction of France’s 18th century “laissez-faire” economic doctrine.

It is easy to criticise poor countries for failing to challenge US/Western dominance. In fact, they tried, and the result was economic sanctions, regime change and war. The only silver lining is that this predatory form of capitalism encouraged small countries in the Global South to formulate their own economic blocks so that they may negotiate with greater leverage. However, even that was not enough to influence, let alone dismantle, the skewed global paradigm.

Large economies, like China, were allowed to benefit from globalisation as long as their massive growth served the interests of the global economy, namely the West. Things began changing, however, when China’s political and geopolitical outreach started to match its economic influence. Former US Republican President Donald Trump dedicated much rhetoric and eventually declared economic war on the so-called “China threat”. The current Democratic administration of Joe Biden is hardly different. Though busy countering Russia’s military operations in Ukraine, Washington remains dedicated to its anti-Chinese rhetoric.

The Marrakesh Agreement in 1994, the treaty upon which the WTO was established, was reached to replace the geopolitically defunct General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades of 1948. Note how each of these global economic treaties resulted from their unique global geopolitical orders, the latter following World War II and the former following the collapse of the Socialist camp. Though Russia and its allies are now mostly focused on claiming some kind of victory in Ukraine, their ultimate goal is to sow the seeds for a different economic balance, with the hope that it will ultimately force a renegotiation of today’s globalisation, therefore the West’s economic hegemony.

Russia is clearly invested in a new global economic system, but without isolating itself in the process. On the other hand, the West is torn. It wants to drop on Russia the Iron Curtain of the past, but without hurting its own economies in the process. This equation is simply unsolvable, at least for the next few years.

In a speech at the Eurasian Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that trying to isolate Russia is: “Impossible, utterly unrealistic in the modern world.” His words accentuate Russia’s full awareness of the West’s objectives and Lavrov’s busy itinerary, especially in the Global South, and is Moscow’s own way of animating an alternative global economic system in which Russia is not isolated. The outcome of all these efforts will not only redefine the world from a geopolitical perspective, but will redefine the very concept of globalisation for generations to come.

June 8, 2022 Posted by | Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

Iran Shuts Off IAEA Cameras with Access beyond Safeguards Agreement

Al-Manar | June 8, 2022

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) announced on Wednesday that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s surveillance cameras recording data beyond the Safeguards Agreement in the country have been deactivated.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said while Tehran has extensively cooperated with the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA has unfortunately ignored the fact that such cooperation signifies Iran’s goodwill, has been ungrateful for the cooperation, and has considered it as a duty of Iran.

As a result, Iran decided to shut off the ultra-Safeguards Agreement cameras monitoring enrichment levels (OLEM or Online Enrichment Monitor) and flowmeters of the IAEA as of Wednesday, June 8, it added.

However, the statement noted, more than 80 percent of the IAEA’s cameras in Iran have access to data within the framework of the Safeguards Agreement which will continue to operate as before.

The OLEM is obviously used to monitor the enrichment of uranium gas through piping at the enrichment facilities.

The spokesperson for the AEOI visited a nuclear site on Wednesday to observe the process of deactivating the two cameras of the IAEA.

The Iranian authorities had already warned the parties seeking to submit an anti-Iran resolution at the IAEA Board of Governors meeting that they will have to take responsibility for the consequences.

The US and the EU troika –the UK, Germany and France- submitted the draft to the 35-nation board on Tuesday, accusing Iran of failing to offer transparent responses to the IAEA’s questions over nuclear activities at three sites.

June 8, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine says no to Russia’s call for de-mining ports to allow grain shipments

Press TV – June 8, 2022

Ukraine has rejected calls from Russia to de-mine its ports around the Black Sea to resume grain shipments, accusing Moscow of trying to “attack” the port of Odessa, the largest seaport in the crisis-stricken country.

Sergiy Bratchuk, a spokesman for Odessa’s regional administration, in a statement on Wednesday, noted that Russia “dreams of parachuting troops” into the city and that Moscow’s army “wants to attack” Odessa.

“The moment we clear access to the port of Odessa, the Russian fleet will be there,” Bratchuk said. He had earlier said that any exports from Odessa must be “escorted by NATO countries.”

His remarks followed a statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday about de-mining the Ukrainian ports.

“To solve the problem, the only thing needed is for the Ukrainians to let vessels out of their ports, either by de-mining them or by marking out safe corridors, nothing more is required,” Lavrov said.

Speaking alongside Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Lavrov said the main problem was that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had “categorically refused” to resolve the issue of the mined ports.

“If they’ve now changed their position, then on our side there are no complications, let’s see how the preliminary agreements we discussed yesterday and today can be put into practice,” Lavrov stressed.

Defense ministers of Russia and Turkey discussed a potential grain export corridor from Ukraine on Tuesday, according to reports.

Russia’s Sergei Shoigu and Turkey’s Hulusi Akar evaluated “all measures that can be taken regarding the safe shipment of grains, sunflower, and all other agricultural products,” according to the Turkish ministry.

Turkey, a NATO member, shares a sea border with both Russia and Ukraine in the Black Sea. Ankara has offered its services to accompany maritime convoys from Ukrainian ports.

Ukraine, one of the world’s biggest exporters of grain, has not been able to export the commodity since the onset of the conflict in the country in late February. Kiev and the West accuse Russia of creating the risk of global famine by shutting Ukraine’s Black Sea ports.

The West has also accused Russia of blocking Ukrainian grain exports from the Black Sea.

Russia, however, says no action was required on the Russian side because it had already made the necessary commitments to solve the problem.

Moscow has also denied responsibility for the international food crisis, blaming Western sanctions.

The West’s unprecedented sanctions against Russia have sent the prices of grain, cooking oil, fertilizers, and energy skyrocketing.

In a separate statement on Wednesday, the Kremlin said that for Russian grain to be delivered to international markets, sanctions on the country must be lifted.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there have been “no substantive discussions” about lifting the sanctions.

Russia and Ukraine together produce virtually 30 percent of the global wheat supply.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia also reassured earlier this week that his government would “guarantee” peaceful passage to ships leaving Ukraine’s ports.

Ukraine, which is a major exporter of corn, barley, sunflower oil, and rapeseed oil, used to export most of its goods through its main ports on the Black and Azov seas. But it has been forced to export by train or via its small Danube River ports since February.

Since the war in Ukraine, wheat and corn prices have jumped 41 percent and 28 percent, respectively,

Experts warn that rising food prices and shortages in the fragile emerging markets in Africa and West Asia could lead to a humanitarian disaster.

Last month, the Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said difficulties in the global food market have been building up for a long time, but “the crisis was further exacerbated due to the introduction by Washington and its satellites of illegitimate sanctions against Russia.”

Russia launched a military operation in Ukraine in late February, following Kiev’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements and Moscow’s recognition of the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

At the time, Russian President Vladimir Putin said one of the goals of what he called a “special military operation” was to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.

June 8, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

Land-based ‘Zircon’ hypersonic missile – a strategic game changer

By Drago Bosnic | June 8, 2022

In (American) English, when describing something incredibly difficult to do, the term “rocket science” is used. And indeed, rocket science, or rocketry for short, is a branch of science dealing with rocket and missile propulsion. There are multiple ways to create viable rocket propulsion. However, in this case, we’ll be talking about one very specific type of rocket, or more precisely, missile propulsion – scramjets. Supersonic combustion ramjet, or scramjet for short, is a form of airbreathing jet engine that uses the forward motion of the engine to produce thrust.

The main difference between a regular ramjet and a scramjet is that combustion takes place in supersonic airflow in the latter. Although the technology dates back to the 1950s, its practical implementation is quite recent. The first working scramjet in the world was the Russian “GLL Kholod” missile which flew in 1991, reaching a speed of nearly Mach 6, making it also the world’s first working hypersonic scramjet design. Unfortunately, the collapse of the USSR stopped funding for the project. The US government (NASA in particular) realized just how far behind Russia they were at the time, so they decided to provide funding for the project, with Russia sharing its know-how in return.

Officially starting in 1985, the Reagan administration launched the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program intended to develop two X-30 aircraft capable of single stage to orbit (SSTO) flight, as well as horizontal takeoff and landing from conventional runways. However, the program was unsuccessful, with the US Congress deciding to cut funding for the project in 1993, after being told the two X-30 aircraft would cost at least $15 billion. After the project was scrapped, NASA approached Russia’s Central Institute of Aviation Motors (CIAM) and took part in tests conducted throughout the 1990s. After the cooperation ended, the US tried developing a similar capability. Still, after numerous projects, including the Boeing X-51 “Waverider”, which was a cooperative endeavor by the US Air Force (USAF), DARPA, NASA, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, the US lacks a working scramjet missile. The X-51 had four flight tests between 2010 and 2014, with the first three failing. The last test was the only success, after which the project was canceled.

At present, there are only a handful of countries possessing the knowledge and resources to conduct scramjet testing. This includes the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU (Germany and France in particular). However, there’s currently only one country in the world with a 100% functioning hypersonic scramjet missile – Russia. Despite the disastrous 1990s and the societal and economic shock it experienced, Russia still managed to not just successfully develop hypersonic scramjet missiles, but also get quite ahead of the rest of the world in this technology. The most prominent example of this is the 3M22 “Zircon”, a scramjet-powered maneuvering hypersonic cruise missile. Although it is officially an anti-ship missile, applications are most likely already multi-role, as is the case with nearly all other Russian missiles.

The “Zircon’s” official testing started in 2012 with air-launched prototypes fired from a Tu-22M3 long-range bomber. The tests soon moved to ground-based and ship-borne platforms, with the famed “Admiral Gorshkov” frigate being the most prominent surface combatant used as “Zircon’s” sea-based test-launching platform. By late 2021, it was reported that the missile had also been test-fired from the K-560 “Severodvinsk” Yasen-class nuclear-powered submarine, both from the surface and submerged. The total number of tests is classified, but the publicly acknowledged ones put the number of test launches at approximately two dozen, all of which have been successful. The “Zircon” has been improved heavily over the years, in terms of both speed and maneuverability. The missile is capable of achieving Mach 9 (approximately 3.1 km per second, or over 11,000 km/h), although some sources claim that it can go up to Mach 10.

The missile was salvo-launched in December 2021 and again in February 2022, both of which have been successful, confirming the serial production variant is up to the Russian military standards. In May, Russian MoD released a video of a new test-launch where the “Zircon” hit a sea target at a distance of over 1,000 km. The program of state trials was formally completed with that launch. However, Russia also announced that the land-based, coastal defense version of the missile would also be deployed, quite possibly in the coming months or by year’s end. A land-based “Zircon” hypersonic missile will be a crucial addition to the Russian military, much like the “Bastion-P” coastal missile system using the P-800 “Oniks” supersonic anti-ship missile. With its 1500 km range and Mach 9 speed, the “Zircon’s” speed is over 3 times greater, while its range is nearly double that of the P-800, which has also been used in Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.

As “Zircon” flies at hypersonic speed within the atmosphere, the air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud, absorbing radio waves and making it effectively invisible to radar, resulting in what is colloquially known as plasma stealth. With plasma stealth, hypersonic speed and sea-skimming, intercepting an approaching “Zircon” is effectively impossible. Its sheer speed is such that the enemy would have mere seconds to detect, target and shoot down the incoming missile. However, the enemy would also need to be able to predict the missile’s flight path, which is simply impossible, as the missile is designed for extreme maneuverability, making predictions based on a ballistic trajectory null.

It’s not a question of if, but when Russia will deploy the land-based “Zircon” missile. With the sea-based version making large surface combatants effectively obsolete, the land-based one would make it pointless to deploy any large formations or even bother with setting up air and missile defenses on the mainland. Due to its speed, maneuverability and thermonuclear capability, the “Zircon” is yet another major strategic addition to the Russian military. Combined with the Mach 12-capable “Kinzhal” air-launched hypersonic missile and the Mach 28-capable “Avangard” hypersonic glide vehicle, the “Zircon” ensures swift destruction of any aggressor.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

June 8, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

“WHAT IS A WOMAN” FULL DOCUMENTARY

MATT WALSH | JUNE 3, 2022

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video, War Crimes | | Leave a comment

Ghost Shot: Pfizer quietly admits it will never manufacture original FDA approved COVID vaccines

Company claims it is manufacturing Comirnaty product with new formula

By Jordan Schachtel | The Dossier | June 3, 2022

The August 23, 2021 FDA approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was a cause for celebration. Marked as a turning point in the battle against COVID19, the announcement was highly publicized by the Biden Administration with the clear intention to extinguish “vaccine hesitancy” and boost uptake.

It was celebrated as a cause for national relief, and many Americans arrived at their local pharmacies under the impression, via government and pharmaceutical propaganda, that they were receiving an FDA-approved COVID vaccine. Yet that legally distinct product, as we know it, never existed. And now we know, via Pfizer, that it will never exist.

For the uninitiated:

Comirnaty is a legally distinct product from the emergency use authorization (EUA) shots, and It has never made its way to market. For months on end, no such vaccine has ever become available. Those who received the “Pfizer shot(s)” have been injected with the emergency use authorization (EUA) version of the shots. See my piece in The Dossier for more info:

Shell Game? There remains no FDA approved COVID vaccine in the United States

The information operation succeeded. There was indeed an FDA approved vaccine, at least on paper, but you couldn’t get it.

When originally confronted with this ordeal, Pfizer labeled this issue an inventory question that had nothing to do with the legal distinction between an experimental EUA product and an FDA-approved vaccine. Up until just weeks ago, this was the statement up on the CDC website via Pfizer:

“Pfizer received FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY).  At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename.

At present, Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these new NDCs and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for U.S. distribution.  As such, the CDC, AMA, and drug compendia may not publish these new codes until Pfizer has determined when the product will be produced with the BLA labels.”

In May, Pfizer updated its statement to mention a December 2021 licensed Comirnaty product, which was granted a license four months after the highly-publicized August FDA press release.

And just last week, Pfizer finally acknowledged that its original licensed product will never be distributed. In an unreported update on the CDC website, Pfizer told the agency:

“Pfizer received initial FDA BLA license on 8/23/2021 for its COVID-19 vaccine for use in individuals 16 and older (COMIRNATY). At that time, the FDA published a BLA package insert that included the approved new COVID-19 vaccine tradename COMIRNATY and listed 2 new NDCs (0069-1000-03, 0069-1000-02) and images of labels with the new tradename. These NDCs will not be manufactured. Only NDCs for the subsequently BLA approved tris-sucrose formulation will be produced.”

The key distinction between the originally approved formulation and the tris-sucrose formulation is that — according to manufacturers — the latter can be held for a much longer period of time outside of an ultra cold freezer. These freezers cost over $10,000 a piece and each unit uses as much energy per day as an average American household. Improper storage can render the mRNA unstable.

Notably, the clinical trials for the Pfizer shot were conducted without the modified tris-sucrose ingredient. Given the partisan nature of Pfizer, the corporate media, government health bureaucracies, and your correspondent’s lack of expertise in this area, it is unclear whether this is significant.

Another notable thing to look out for in the coming days and weeks is the possibility that the subsequently FDA approved product finally becomes available in the United States. In recent days, the CDC removed the language of “not orderable at this time” above the description of both Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax.

Additionally, as reported by Uncover DC, the Defense Department appears to be in the early stages of ordering what it has interpreted as a legally required minimum of Comirnaty in order to continue its mRNA mandate of American service members.

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Fauci’s COVID origins coverup spook has resurfaced to misdirect us about the origin of money pox

By Meryl Nass, MD | June 7, 2022

Andrew Rambaut (pronounced Rambo—and like Rambo, he is still in the ring, fighting for the globalists, when he should have taken his toys and slunk away long ago—after being beaten up as one of the stooges who produced the fake Nature Medicine paper on COVID’s origins) has long been associated with a group of virology spooks in Tony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar’s network. The field of evolutionary biology is supposed to tell you where new viruses have come from. But of course, it has been kidnapped to provide specious explanations when the biowarriors need to try and explain their concoctions as having natural origins.

Rambaut was also used to dispute the origins of HIV (as described in my friend Ed Hooper’s book The River ) while teamed up with Eddie Holmes, another Fauci flunkie, more than 20 years ago.

Republican members of Congress want to know what Fauci and his henchmen were up to when they concocted a fake natural origin for COVID, as revealed in the Fauci emails.

Rambaut was one of the 5 authors of that paper, and the paper was highly effective for a bit over one year at keeping a lid on COVID’s lab origin. As the members of Congress wrote:

Andersen and three other doctors on this teleconference [including Rambaut] later published a paper titled “the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. This paper was highly influential in shaping our nation’s response to the pandemic. In the paper, the doctors concluded that “…we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”[11]

… The Andersen paper led the narrative away from COVID-19’s potential lab origins. As Americans, we are deeply concerned by the appearance of discrepancies that largely influenced our understanding and approach to this virus. As Representatives of the American people, we owe it to them to seek and expose the truth about this virus’ origins wherever those efforts may lead.

Now Rambaut has popped up again, like a jack-in-the-box, to explain how the unexplainable 50 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP mutations) could have happened naturally. He has another bold theory! There was an evolutionary jump!

And Rambaut proffered yet another theory: the virus has been spreading in humans for years; we just didn’t notice it.

Below is a paper published by Portuguese researchers discusing the newly discovered mutations in money pox. They mention Rambaut’s theory, and Rambaut himself provides the first comment below the paper.

Spooks like Dr. Rambaut don’t do this dirty work for nothing. Just last month, he was made a fellow of the Royal Society.

From Wikipedia:

Science reported on 11 January 2020 that Rambaut was the first to publish the genome of the COVID-19 coronavirus after it was sent to him by Edward C. Holmes.[11][12] Holmes has said that it “took 52 minutes from receiving the code [from his Chinese colleague Professor Yong-Zhen Zhang] to publishing” on Virological.[13][14] The BBC Horizon episode The Vaccine stated: “When Chinese scientists published the genetic sequence of a mystery new virus on January 10th 2020, vaccine scientists around the world immediately sprang into action”.[15]

Rambaut was one of the authors of the scientific paper The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,[16] which concluded that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus”.

Rambaut is an attendee of the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).[17]

Perhaps someone else can look up his recent research grants. Were they from NIH or Wellcome? Being rewarded royally with other peoples’ money is another characteristic of the virology spook group.

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

False Messaging Forever: The WHO’s Plan for the Future

By David Bell | Brownstone Institute | June 6, 22022

The World Health Organization (WHO), and the growing pandemic preparedness industry sponsoring it, have faced considerable challenges in maintaining support for its COVID-19 response.

It has addressed this difficult situation with simple and uniform messaging. The compliance thus achieved by WHO has been vital to the successful wealth concentration of the COVID-19 response, benefiting its major sponsors but also the army of global health staff who have remained obedient throughout.

Threatening this progress, a skeptical minority within the public sphere have been using evidence and rational argument to undermine the pandemic industry’s potential. As the pandemic preparedness and response narrative is poorly defensible on rational criteria, such criticism and opposition must be dealt with and dismissed by other means.

This is being achieved through the creation of a dogma around mass COVID-19 vaccination sufficiently separated from reality as to render the normal processes of debate irrelevant. If the gap between pandemic messaging and reality can be kept sufficiently wide, few passengers can step off, and this lucrative gravy train becomes unstoppable.

Big lies become matters of faith

The development and mass deployment of vaccines has been a key component of the COVID-19 response, underpinning much of the transfer of wealth from lower-income people, and countries, to Big Pharma, their investors, and the global health workforce they sponsor.

Against a background of rapidly increasing global poverty, this unprecedented increase in wealth has in turn raised the potential for unprecedented funding to global health institutions – the mostly Western-based industry that fills offices and drains aid budgets in Europe and North America.

A significant cognitive decoupling has been necessary across this sector to achieve sufficient uniformity of voice and purpose, as the institutions involved were ostensibly intended to improve the health and uphold the rights of those less financially fortunate. For success, staff of the WHO and other international organizations therefore had to be enabled to signal virtuous intent while acting in concert for corporate gain.

Vaccines traditionally protect the vaccinated against a target pathogen, and humans tend to develop good immunity after respiratory virus infections. These two realities create an urgent problem for the pandemic preparedness industry, as the increased financing set to expand their reach is dependent on successfully convincing the world that these truths are indeed fallacies.

Thus, to sell COVAX, the WHO’s financing facility for mass COVID-19 vaccination and the model for future pandemic responses, it was vital for the WHO to ensure that the obvious nonsensical nature of the program would be ignored. This required coordination and adherence to a single simple message, repeated incessantly to stifle external opinion; a slogan so ridiculous that it becomes inarguable.

It is essential to focus people on simplistic slogans if the aim is to suppress their tendency for independent thought and to make any venture in that direction a cause of stress. If people can see their respected authority figures standing behind a statement that is otherwise obviously false, it becomes easier to accept that the false must be true than to stand alone against authority and the crowd.

Once one’s colleagues are on board, the Asch Conformity phenomenon kicks in – if everyone else is saying ‘X,’ then it surely must be ‘X,’ even if it looks like ‘Y.’ If a health program flies in the face of all existing medical knowledge, it must therefore be supported by a sufficiently strong dogma to negate evidence-based argument. It is a testament to the power of group-think, loyalty to sponsors and the allure of money that this has, thus far, been brilliantly achieved.

COVAX – Selling the golden goose

“No one is safe, until everyone is safe,” the WHO’s COVAX motto, fulfills all the above criteria.

Most people want to be safe – and to achieve industry aims, the public must be convinced that others, not just themselves, are the key to their personal safety. They must support the blame or coercion being applied to these others. But the brilliance of ‘No one is safe, until everyone is safe’ is not just in its appeal to self-preservation and its divisiveness, but in its simple stupidity.

For the slogan to be true, the vaccine must be transmission-blocking only. It must not protect the vaccinated individual. Otherwise, their safety will not be dependent on the vaccination of others. However, the WHO and its partners also claim that “COVID-19 vaccines provide strong protection against serious illness, hospitalization and death.” Therefore, in promoting its ‘No one is safe’ slogan, WHO staff must collectively proclaim a lie. This builds loyalty and cohesion, as a lie is more easily maintained within a like-minded group.

To be ‘safe’ from a virus, one must either be intrinsically at very low risk (as most people are to most viruses) or gain immunity.

‘Intrinsic low risk’ created a huge problem for the mass-vaccination narrative early in the COVID-19 outbreak, as data from China showed the very strong skew of severe COVID-19 towards old age, and association with certain comorbidities. Most people are clearly at minimal risk. This had to be suppressed to enable mass-vaccination – all must consider themselves at risk. Public health agencies and their corporate backers even proclaimed impending catastrophe for the people of sub-Saharan Africa, more than half of whom are under 20 years of age. The use of age-based disease metrics, standard for disease-burden assessments up to 2019, were put aside and ‘COVID-19’ mortality reported as raw mortality numbers only.

Immunity presents a problem, as it is both the pathway through which vaccines work, and the way we naturally gain protection. Immunity makes us safe, but Pharma-independent immunity is useless to investors. While a safe vaccine would be preferable to a dangerous virus, once infection has occurred the gain from vaccination is minimal. This poses an immediate threat to profits and share price.

The response to this dilemma included one of history’s more ludicrous statements from a global institution, when the WHO modified its herd immunity definition to only recognize immunity resulting from pharmaceutical intervention. This is nonsense to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of immunology, and of course the WHO’s staff have at least rudimentary knowledge.

Inevitably, SARS-CoV-2 has continued spreading, including from the vaccinated. Based on serology from Africa, India and the USA, and the highly transmissible Omicron variant, we can now be confident that nearly all the world’s population have post-infection immunity.

It is no biological surprise that immunity gained from these whole-virus respiratory tract infections reduces disease severity more effectively than injection with spike-protein or its mRNA precursors. Claiming that mass vaccination still has public health relevance in these populations requires both abandonment of logic, and a willingness to dispense with decades of prior scientific learning. It requires acceptance of dogma.

A final component of the COVAX strategy, to lock in celebrity support and enable those promoting the vaccine to still feel virtuous, is ‘vaccine equity.’ People in rich countries are having boosters whilst many of the ‘global poor’ still await their first doses. The lack of plausible benefit to be obtained from these doses, and the requirement of coercion to attain high coverage, is irrelevant – inequity in vaccine distribution just must be ‘bad.’

Whilst pushing more boosters on high income markets, the same Pharma companies can look good by demanding vaccine equity, advocating for the ‘disadvantaged.’ In reality this diverts resources from areas of greater need, thereby killing more children, but such fine print will never make the front pages. Commodity equity expands markets and provides returns, while health equity does not. Fear of being vilified as anti-equity helps keep skeptics quiet.

Bolting down the golden goose

Science, including public health, were previously held to be based on processes of logic, based on an acceptance that aspects of our world are grounded in discoverable truth. This concept is a threat to COVAX and the wider pandemic preparedness narrative. It is a threat to the return on investment of the pandemic industry’s sponsors. Greed is a stronger driver than truth, and it must be allowed to run free if society is to be truly reset in favor of those who wish to concentrate and control its wealth.

Despite its massive internal contradictions, disproportionate cost, coercion, and requirement for its promoters to live obvious lies, COVAX and the entire mass-vaccination paradigm has created a strong model for success of the wider pandemic preparedness project. If truth in public health can be so readily dispensed with, and those working in the field so willingly corralled, the potential for milking the public’s trust and desire for safety presents unprecedented potential for profit.

As this wealth accumulates, it supports the continuing advocacy and manipulation required to keep its adherents loyal. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle – we can expect to see more outbreaks, health emergencies and pandemics declared, more vaccines rolled out, and more wealth concentrated as a result. This becomes an unstoppable cycle burying truth under a growing fog of fear and falsehood.

That, at least, is the plan. The eventual outcome will depend on whether truth, human rights, equality and trust were ever fundamental to maintaining societal cohesion and peace. If they were, then let us hope the chaos that follows their abandonment is somehow contained. For now, business is business, and the golden goose, bolted down in a hall of lies, will keep on laying.

David Bell, senior scholar of Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician based in the United States. After working in internal medicine and public health in Australia and the UK, he worked in the World Health Organization (WHO), as Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, and as Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, USA. He consults in biotech and global health. MBBS, MTH, PhD, FAFPHM, FRCP

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

How can this government of deceivers protect our ‘safety’?

By Suzie Halewood | TCW Defending Fredom | June 7, 2022

HOW can a government that locked us down, collapsed our businesses, imposed a useless mask compliance regime, misled us about the severity of Covid while stifling information about safe, effective treatments in order to force through emergency use approval for ‘vaccines’ and nudge us towards experimental treatments that not only failed to prevent transmission, but caused irreversible damage and death, be in any position to decide what constitutes ‘harm’?

Yet here comes the Online Safety Bill, threatening not only hefty fines from free-press-suppressing Ofcom, but also prison time for anybody judged to have caused psychological harm leading to ‘serious distress’. Harmful content could include online bullying and abuse, advocacy of self-harm and the spreading of misinformation (defined as information that is false, but not created with the intention of causing harm) disinformation (information that is false and created to harm a person, social group, organisation or country) and malinformation (information that is based on reality, used to inflict harm on a person, organisation or country).

Section 53 (c) of the Online Safety Bill determines offending content to be anything that ‘presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the United Kingdom’.

Like a vaccine then, or masks, or not seeing your friends, or not being able to go out, or attend school and with the added fear that by being ‘selfish’ and not taking a vaccine you didn’t need, you could kill your granny, mum, dad and teacher. Little wonder 374,646 children and young people contacted mental health services last month. The number of adults contacting mental health services in the same period was 1,054,003.

Harms with a less clear legal definition include ‘Coercive Behaviour’ (a government speciality), ‘Disinformation’ (Gates-funded MSM, WHO and all those ‘fact-checkers’ sponsored by the usual suspects), ‘Intimidation’ (jabs for jobs) and ‘Advocacy of Self-Harm’ (‘vaccines’).

The Bill, which also ‘protects’ adults – in case, God forbid, we might have the temerity to think for ourselves – empowers Ofcom to block users, control, moderate and take down content. Criminal sanctions currently in ‘reserve’ could be imposed on tech giants if they fail to clean up their acts or do not ‘allow Ofcom access to their algorithms’ – algorithms that show ‘how easily, quickly and widely content may be disseminated by means of the service’. In other words, Ofcom has been given free rein to make any significant change to a risk profile and make their own assessment as to the level of risk of harm to adults and how quickly such perceived-to-be-harmful content can be spread. So if Ofcom decides – as with YouTube’s Covid-19 Misinformation Policy (slight conflict of interests since Google Ventures invested in the AZ ‘vaccine’) which defines medical misinformation as any content that ‘contradicts guidance from the WHO or local health authorities’ – that ivermectin can cause harm, they can take down any mention of ivermectin (even if the only damage caused by ivermectin is to the profits of the pharma criminals) regardless of the fact Ofcom does not employ immunologists, epidemiologists or virologists.

As for ‘hate speech’, defined as ‘all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance on the grounds of . . . belief . . . or opinion’, would  Piers Morgan’s ‘Anti-vaxxers really are a bunch of spineless pussies’ tweet, or Noam Chomsky’s insistence that the unvaccinated be segregated and that getting food was ‘their problem’, qualify as hate speech? Of course not. Their views are in line with The Agenda.

Adults don’t need Ofcom chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes deciding for them what they can or can’t watch (I use a VPN for Russia Today, Melanie) any more than they need Bill Gates telling them what they can eat (synthetic burgers) or Nadine Dorries pushing through the government’s idea of what constitutes harm or safety. Offence is taken, not given. If I wish to be offended, that’s my choice.

If the government genuinely cared about harm, they’d have carried out risk assessments to weigh up the pros (none) and cons (it was) of locking down the country. They wouldn’t have wilfully terrified the public when they knew full well Covid wasn’t a risk, as they themselves were partying like it was 1984.

Had Nadine ‘I’m A Celebrity . . . Get Me Out of Here’ Dorries cared about ‘harm’ she’d have voluntarily answered one of the 50 letters and emails sent to her by one of her own vaccine-injured constituents instead of having to be pressured into a response by a lobbying group taking up the cause of the vaccine-injured.

If the government cared one iota for the electorate, the vaccine rollout would surely have been halted following a September 2021 meeting in which Tess Lawrie, Dolores Cahill, Mike Yeadon and other doctors and scientists presented damning evidence to Sir Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee which illustrated how a mass rollout of the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ for children would lead to children being maimed, killed and sterilised.

Such disregard for the electorate runs throughout government. There was a full house for Zelensky’s Churchill-plagiarising extravaganza compared with a paltry five MPs for the reading of Sir Christopher Chope’s Private Member’s Bill aimed at reforming the government’s Vaccine Damages Payment Scheme (VDPS).

Despite more than 2,000 deaths and approaching a million and half injuries (including blindness, strokes and paralysis) reported to MHRA’s Yellow Card scheme (set up following the thalidomide scandal) no compensation has yet been paid. As the VDPS doesn’t consider death as a qualifier for the 60 per cent disability requirement needed to pay out the paltry £120,000 to cover a lifetime of injury, clearly they’re already trying to wriggle out of it.

Before the Online Harms Bill goes any further, it might be a good idea to decide who is the best legal arbiter to rule on what unequivocally constitutes mis-, dis- or mal-information and who in the government (if anyone) has the moral authority or psychological capacity to judge what represents psychological ‘harm’ either to a child or an adult.

If the Online Safety Bill does pass, first in the dock should be the government.

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

WHO prepares for climate change emergencies

The Counter Signal | June 7, 2022

Speaking on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), International Council of Nurses CEO Howard Catton claimed that climate change is the ”grandmother of all health threats.”

“I talk to nurses around the world every week who tell me about how they see the impacts of climate change on the health of people they care for every single day in their practice,” Catton said. “There are 45 million-plus healthcare professionals who are witnesses to the health emergency that is unfolding in plain sight.”

“Their voice must be heard and acted on.”

He continues, conflating the damage caused by poor air quality and pollution — likely in places like China and India, not the developed countries of the West — with the supposed damage caused by minute rising temperatures. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom, of course, agrees with this radical climate change position.

“They see and work with young people struggling and old people struggling with respiratory disorders caused or exacerbated by poor air quality and pollution. People who can’t go out, who are struggling with their tasks of daily living, who are losing function, whose independence undermined,” Catton said.

“They support people who are not coping with extreme temperature changes from heat stroke and exhaustion to hypothermia. Many of these people are [the] most vulnerable, with underlying conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, which is made worse.”

According to Climate.gov, the global average temperature has risen by 1 degree Celsius over the last 40 years… This is the “extreme temperature” change that Catton speaks of, without going into the fact weather trends fluctuate and we, in the broader scheme of things, just came out of a little ice age, which probably should just be labelled a light cooling period between 1500-1850 AD (starting before the Industrial Revolution and ending as it was kicking off).

Catton continues, blaming the 1-degree Celsius change in global temperatures for natural occurrences like flooding and forest fires, which he says perpetuates the spread of disease.

For these reasons, Catton says that climate change is one of the greatest risks to global health and that health needs “to be at the centre of all our policies: energy, transport, agriculture, water, and food.”

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Electric transport miracle fail: Wiesbaden reintroduces diesel buses

Free West Media | June 6, 2022

In Wiesbaden, Germany, the electric bus era is already over before it really began. The city is now buying conventional buses again. There were just too many problems with electric transport, they say.

The city had initially bought 56 battery buses. The Federal Environment Ministry added 45 million euros of taxpayers’ money. The then Minister Schulze declared: “Wiesbaden is setting a good example and showing how environmentally friendly and attractive public transport is possible.” For the Lord Mayor, the first buses marked the beginning of the “official battery bus age”. A total of 220 new electric buses were to be procured according to original plans.

In practical terms, the climate miracle – the electric bus – sadly failed to deliver. Again and again buses broke down, they had to be recalled by the manufacturer and the municipal transport company ESWE had to ask for understanding from passengers. And because of the hilly terrain in the capital of the state of Hesse, the electric buses did not even manage half the range of the diesel-powered buses.

A battery charge is said to last only 150 kilometres, and in icy temperatures and with a full bus even up to 100 kilometres less. A diesel-powered public bus travels 300 to 400 kilometres a day – uphill and downhill and also costs up to three times less than an e-bus.

The photovoltaic system installed on the roof of the station has also had to be dismantled “due to update fire-protection regulations”.

In the end, plans for a separate power station at the depot so that the many limping electric buses could be charged, were scrapped and further expensive green transport expenditures are off the table. With the e-buses in disrepair, the power station has become superfluous. For the time being, the transport authority is looking for a cheap place to park all the electric buses that are no longer in use.

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Ireland prepares for fuel crisis and work-from-home mandates

By Thomas Lambert | The Counter Signal | June 7, 2022

Government officials in Ireland recently wargamed a fuel crisis scenario wherein fuel had to be rationed, and companies were told to enforce mandatory work-from-home orders to reduce consumption.

According to an exclusive exposé from the Irish Independent, participants convened in a confidential meeting on May 27 at the National Emergency Co-ordination Centre to participate in a hypothetical “Oil Emergency Exercise” wherein Ireland faced 20 per cent diesel supply deficits in September and a 35 per cent supply drop in December.

“The third and most extreme scenario proposed for February 2023 is where gas and oil supplies cannot meet the demand for electricity generation or farmers [are] preparing to cut silage,” reports the Irish Independent.

In such a situation, participants of the wargame agreed the following measures would need to be taken:

  • The government would impose a work-from-home mandate for “non-essential” workers.
  • The government would impose travel bans on “non-essential car travel.”
  • Speed limits would be imposed on various roads
  • Fuel rationing would begin, with a firm limit set on individual purchases — likely irrespective of automobile or necessity.
  • And a curious “emergency scheme” would be implemented to see people with odd-numbered license plates alternating refuelling days with people with even-numbered plates.

Participants of the exercise included the Department of the Environment, Climate, and Communications (DECC), the National Oil Reserves Agency (NORA), Fuels for Ireland (FFI), and the Department of Transport and National Emergency Coordination Group (NECG).

Speaking to the Irish Independent, Fuels for Ireland CEO Kevin McPartlan said, “While it remains highly unlikely that we will experience a reduced supply of fuel, it is prudent that we and Government engage in emergency planning.”

“As things stand, despite the invasion of Ukraine and the announcement of sanctions prohibiting the importation of Russian fuel into the EU, our stock levels are very healthy, and we see no cause for concern in our supply pipeline.”

Despite there being some prospects for oil extraction off the coast of Ireland, in 2021, Ireland shot itself in the proverbial foot, with the government banning all licenses for new oil and natural gas exploration as part of a plan to hit the mythical net-zero carbon emissions mark.

As per a government announcement, Climate Change minister Eamon Ryan said, “The decision we have made today to legislate for a ban on new oil exploration and extraction will send a powerful message, within Ireland and internationally, that Ireland is moving away from fossil fuels towards a renewable future. By keeping fossil fuels in the ground, we will incentivize the transition to renewable energy and put ourselves on a pathway to net-zero by 2050.”

Indeed, despite global trends all pointing towards the need to ramp up oil production and refinement, Ireland, along with other countries, has committed itself to hamper its very means of survival in the wake of mass inflation and shortages.

June 7, 2022 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | | Leave a comment