FDA Grants Emergency Use of Pfizer Vaccine for Kids 5 to 11, as Reports of Injuries After COVID Vaccines Near 840,000
By Megan Redshaw | The Defender | October 29, 2021
Data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 22, 2021, a total of 837,595 adverse events following COVID vaccines were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The data included a total of 17,619 reports of deaths — an increase of 491 over the previous week. There were 127,457 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 4,624 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 622,743 adverse events, including 8,068 deaths and 51,532 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 22, 2021.
Of the 8,068 U.S. deaths reported as of Oct. 22, 11% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 27% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 411.6 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Oct. 15. This includes: 242 million doses of Pfizer, 154 million doses of Moderna and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
The data come directly from reports submitted to VAERS, the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.
Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
This week’s U.S. data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
- 22,212 total adverse events, including 1,348 rated as serious and 25 reported deaths. Two of the 25 deaths were suicides.
The most recent death involves a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Another recent death includes a 15-year-old male who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. According to his VAERS report (VAERS I.D. 1764974), the previously healthy teen complained of brief unilateral shoulder pain five days after receiving his COVID vaccine. The next day he played with two friends at a community pond, swung on a rope swing, flipped into the air, and landed in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed and told his friends “Wow, that hurt!” He then swam toward shore underwater, as was his usual routine, but did not re-emerge.
An autopsy showed no external indication of a head injury, but there was a small subgaleal hemorrhage — a rare, but lethal bleeding disorder — over the left occiput. In addition, the boy had a mildly elevated cardiac mass, increased left ventricular wall thickness and small foci of myocardial inflammation of the lateral wall of the left ventricle with myocyte necrosis consistent with myocardial infarction.
- 58 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine. - 539 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 531 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
- 125 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
This week’s U.S. VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 22, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
- 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
- 54% of those who died were male, 41% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
- The average age of death was 72.7.
- As of Oct. 22, 4,151 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 1,296 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
- Of the 3,065 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 51% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 41% to Moderna and 8% to J&J.
- 685 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome, with 41% of cases attributed to Pfizer, 31% to Moderna and 28% to J&J.
- 2,043 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
- 10,493 reports of blood clotting disorders. Of those, 4,590 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 3,766 reports to Moderna and 2,083 reports to J&J.
- 2,971 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 1,865 cases attributed to Pfizer, 978 cases to Moderna and 118 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
FDA grants Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer Vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old, The Associated Press reported.
The announcement followed Tuesday’s recommendation by the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee that the agency grant Pfizer’s request. The advisory committee vote passed with 17 in support, and one abstention.
Reporting on today’s news, STAT noted:
“The vaccine was not granted FDA approval, but instead an emergency use authorization. Emergency authorizations are used when the secretary of health and human services has declared a public health emergency to more quickly clear the use of vaccines, treatments, and diagnostic tests. These authorizations lapse when the state of emergency ends. Pfizer’s vaccine was fully approved for those age 16 and older in August, and was previously granted an emergency use authorization for use in adolescents ages 12 to 15.”
The dose for younger children will be one-third the strength given to people 12 and older, with two shots given three weeks apart. Before the shots can be rolled out, the CDC must weigh in with its own recommendations.
During Tuesday’s meeting, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Committee heard evidence from Pfizer and regulators, and listened to concerns raised by multiple scientists and physicians.
Based on CDC data presented during the meeting, among children 5 to <12 years of age, there have been approximately 1.8 million confirmed and reported COVID cases since the beginning of the pandemic, and only 143 COVID-related deaths in the U.S. through Oct. 14.
Pfizer provided safety data on two study cohorts of children ages 5 to 11, both of roughly equal size. The first group was followed for only about two months, the second for only two-and-a-half weeks.
Pfizer said “post-vaccination myocarditis/pericarditis” in participants 5 to <12 years of age will not be studied until after the vaccine is authorized for children.
Pfizer vaccine ‘failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children,’ scientist says Brian Dressen, Ph.D., is one of the scientists who testified Tuesday during the FDA advisory committee’s 8-hour hearing. Dressen is also the husband of Brianne Dressen, who in 2020 developed a severe neurological injury during the Utah-based portion of the U.S. AstraZeneca COVID vaccine.
During his 3-minute testimony, Dressen, a chemist with an extensive background in researching and assessing the degree of efficacy in new technologies, told the FDA advisory panel Pfizer’s vaccine “failed any reasonable risk-benefit calculus in connection with children.”
Dressen said the decision to authorize for 5- to 11-year-olds is being rushed and is based on “incomplete data from underpowered trials, insufficient to predict rates of severe and long-lasting adverse reactions.”
Dressen urged the committee to reject the EUA modification and direct Pfizer to perform trials that decisively demonstrate the benefits outweigh the risks for children.
Dressen’s wife was severely injured last November after receiving her first and only dose of a COVID vaccine administered during a clinical trial.
“Because study protocol requires two doses, she was dropped from the trial, and her access to the study app deleted,” Dressen said. “Her reaction is not described in the recently released clinical trial report — 266 participants are described as having an adverse event leading to discontinuation, with 56 neurological reactions tallied.”
CDC updates guidance allowing immunocompromised to get a fourth COVID shot
Immunocompromised adults who received a third dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine will become eligible for a fourth booster shot six months after receiving their third dose, according to CDC guidance issued Monday.
“In such situations, people who are moderately and severely immunocompromised may receive a total of four vaccine doses,” with the fourth coming at least six months after the third, the CDC’s new guidelines said.
In August, the CDC authorized a third dose of either Pfizer-BioNTech or the Moderna mRNA vaccine — but not Johnson and Johnson’s (J&J) adenovirus vaccine — for certain immunocompromised people 18 and older.
However, a third dose is now considered part of the primary series, rather than a booster. The earliest that immunocompromised people who received a third mRNA vaccine shot can get a fourth shot as a booster would be February.
The agency said people could select that booster from any of the three COVID vaccines available in the U.S, including J&J, but specified a fourth dose of Moderna’s vaccine should be half the size of a normal dose.
Double-vaccinated can still spread the virus at home
Fully vaccinated people are catching COVID and passing it on to those they live with, warn experts in the UK. A British study published in the Lancet Oct. 29, showed individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.
Even if they are asymptomatic or have few symptoms, the chance of transmitting the virus to other unvaccinated housemates is about two in five, or 38%. This drops to one in four, or 25%, if housemates are also fully vaccinated.
“By carrying out repeated and frequent sampling from contacts of COVID-19 cases, we found that vaccinated people can contract and pass on an infection within households, including to vaccinated household members,” said Dr. Anika Singanayagam, co-lead author of the study.
“Our findings provide important insights into … why the Delta variant is continuing to cause high COVID-19 case numbers around the world, even in countries with high vaccination rates.
Vaccinated contacts who tested positive for COVID on average received their shots longer ago than those who tested negative, which the authors said was evidence of waning immunity and supported the need for booster shots.
Neil Ferguson, an Imperial epidemiologist, said the transmissibility of Delta meant that it was unlikely Britain would reach herd immunity for long.
“That may happen in the next few weeks: If the epidemic’s current transmission peaks and then starts declining, we have by definition in some sense reached herd immunity, but it is not going to be a permanent thing,” Ferguson told reporters.
16-year-old girl develops severe vulvar ulcers after second Pfizer shot
A case report published Oct. 25 in the Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology revealed a new potential novel side effect of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine that doctors say warrant further investigation.
According to the report, a 16-year-old non-sexually active female presented to the pediatric gynecology clinic with vaginal pain six days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Within 24 hours of receiving the vaccine, the girl developed fever, fatigue, myalgias and “sores” in her vaginal area. Over the next two days, right-sided lesions in her vaginal area coalesced and became more painful. The teen went to the urgent care with a fever of 105 degrees. She was diagnosed with a Bartholin gland abscess.
Despite antibiotic therapy, her symptoms worsened and her lesions were covered in exudate with a necrotic, ring-like border. In the gynecology clinic, the patient’s lesions were exquisitely painful, resulting in difficulty with urination, defecation and walking. She had no respiratory symptoms and no history of COVID exposure.
The report said the findings “were consistent with vulvar aphthous ulcers in association with influenza-like symptoms following Pfizer BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccination.”
“Our patient had typical clinical features of aphthous ulcer, including an influenza-like prodrome and characteristic dermatologic manifestations which occurred after receiving the Pfizer COVID vaccine,” the authors wrote. According to the report, the girl’s case was submitted to VAERS “due to the temporal relationship with COVID vaccine administration.”
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
© 2021 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.
Covid Test Swabs Found Contaminated With Aluminium, Silicon and Dangerous Chemicals
By Will Jones • The Daily Sceptic • October 27 2021
A public sector trade union in Cyprus has called for the suspension of rapid lateral flow tests after analysis found multiple times the permissible trace level of ethylene oxide.
The analysis by Cyprus-based Food Allergens Lab found 0.36 mg/kg of ethylene oxide in one swab, over seven times the limit of 0.05 mg/kg imposed by E.U. regulations.
According to the European Chemicals Agency, ethylene oxide is toxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic, including when inhaled. It is used to coat and sterilise PCR and rapid test nasal swabs.
A separate analysis by A-D Research Foundation in California found aluminum and silicon at concentrations as high as 7.25% and 14.06% respectively in some spots on PCR test swabs. The author, Peter Grandics, explains that aluminum and silicon can both be hazardous to health, and suggests this may explain the “rapid-onset nasal bleed and strong and lasting adverse reactions reported by the tested individuals”.
It follows concerns about why the bristles in LFT swabs so easily break away and remain in the body, as shown in this video.
As reported in the Daily Sceptic in August, Professor Anthony Brookes and Dr Kees Straatman from the University of Leicester put some material from a LFT swab under a powerful laser microscope and sent us the videos showing what they found. They explained:
To shed further light on the bristle structure of the swabs provided in LFD testing kits, we examined examples via confocal microscopy. The bristles were easy to separate from the swab itself, about 15 micrometres in diameter (the size of a large nucleus in a human cell), and clearly comprised an outer tube layer with an inner filling. The inner material does not seem to exude or flow or deviate from a cylindrical shape when the bristles are dissected, and so we would provisionally conclude this inner material is solid or semi-solid in nature.
In his paper, Peter Grandics is scathing about the standards of the manufacturers:
Our results revealed a disturbing pattern of noncompliance with regulatory requirements, combined with the lack of concern for the well-being of test subjects. It is ironic that the medical establishment that now strives to control human health is incapable of producing a safe and simple product in conformance with current regulatory standards.
Considering how widely these tests are being used and how often, Government ought to be taking much greater interest in how safe they are for human use.
Yale Epidemiologist Cautions About Child Vaccination
By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific International | October 29, 2021
The next wave of vaccination mandates will involve children. Since anyone raising concerns about this is considered an enemy of society, it’s been impossible to have a rational discussion about it.
Here’s what Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and the Yale School of Medicine had to say about it this week.
“As far as I can tell, it’s a top-down structure, and most doctors do not get their information by going back and reading the original studies and making up their own minds. They get fed the information from pharma reps or from what they’re told from societies. The conflicts are legion. So it’s no surprise that most doctors don’t pay attention and think what they’re told…
“If the child has chronic conditions that make their risk appreciable, then there is a reason that they should be considered for vaccination. Other than that, if it were my child, I would homeschool them. Honestly, I would organize with other parents to take them out of the school and create a homeschooling environment.
There is no choice. Your child’s life is on the line.
“It’s not a high risk. Vaccination is not a high risk that’s going to kill every child by doing so. However, it’s enough of a risk that on the average the benefit is higher for homeschooling than it is for vaccination and being in school.”
Martin Kulldorff of Harvard is saying something similar:
“I don’t think children should be vaccinated for COVID. I’m a huge fan of vaccinating children for measles, for mumps, for polio, for rotavirus, and many other diseases. That’s critical. But COVID is not a huge threat to children….
“They can be infected, just like they can get the common cold, but they’re not a big threat. They don’t die from this, except in very rare circumstances. So if you want to talk about protecting children or keeping children safe, I think we can talk about traffic accidents, for example, which they are really at some risk…. And there are other things that we should make sure [of] to keep children safe. But COVID is not a big risk factor for children.”
Kulldorff points to the experience of his native Sweden. Beginning with the first wave in the spring of 2020, Sweden “decided to keep daycare and schools open for all children ages 1 to 15.
And there are 1.8 million such children who got through the first wave without vaccines, of course, without masks, without any sort of distancing in schools.
If a child was sick, they were told to stay home. But that was basically it. And you know how many of those 1.8 million children died from COVID? Zero. Only a few hospitalizations. So this is not a risky disease for children.”
He concludes: “If you’re a child, even if you haven’t had COVID, the risk of serious disease or death is minuscule … So it’s not at all clear that the benefits outweigh the risks for children.”
Try discussing this with friends and relatives on social media, and you run the risk of being silenced.
We are not even allowed to discuss these things. And when in our lifetimes has free discussion been more urgently needed?
There’s no censorship in my group, the Tom Woods Show Elite.
Here we discuss important matters like adults.
If you’re in a position where you don’t need such a thing, you are among the lucky few.
New York City’s New ‘Public Health’ Plan: Let Garbage Pile Up on the Sidewalks
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | October 29, 2021
In the name of “public health,” the New York City government this week has been telling city employees to take the experimental coronavirus “vaccine” shots by Friday at 5 p.m. or be fired, or as the city government terms it, “placed on leave without pay.” Plenty of city workers of all types upset by this attack on their freedom have been taking to the streets in large numbers to protest, often admirably joined by leaders of their unions.
Apparently, New York City garbagemen upset with their mistreatment have chosen to skip days of work as well. The result, detailed in a Thursday article by Jean Lee at NBC News is trash piling up in parts of the city as regularly scheduled trash collection fails to occur.
What to expect after the Friday deadline? Continued piling up of trash on New York City sidewalks, right next to where millions of people in the densely populated city live, work, shop, and play each day is a good bet. Lee quotes the president of the Sanitation Officers Association:
Joseph Mannion, president of the Sanitation Officers Association, fears the trash pileups might foreshadow a possible worker shortage on Monday if vaccination rates among sanitation workers don’t increase by Friday. He said that the sanitation department has been moving to snow season shifts — 12 hours instead of eight — in anticipation of a possible worker shortage.
‘Prepare for the worst and hope for the best,’ Mannion said.
But Mannion is skeptical and said that he knows many sanitation workers are “hardened in their beliefs” and will refuse vaccination, even if it means being put on unpaid leave.
‘I know more people are getting vaccinated, but is it going to change around 60 percent to 80 percent?’ asked Mannion. ‘I don’t know. I don’t think so.’
More and more people in New York City must be asking themselves which is a healthier, and more pleasant, option: (A) letting trash continue to pile up on sidewalks while 100 percent of garbagemen are confirmed to have taken the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots, or (B) having trash regularly cleared from sidewalks while letting garbagemen choose whether they take the shots? My guess is that most people will choose option B, especially if the trash keeps piling up for weeks or even months on end.
Nov. 3: Join the ‘Worldwide Walkout,’ a Global Protest Against Government Overreach
Children’s Health Defense
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Nov. 3 will join organizations and individuals in “Worldwide Walkout” by calling in sick or taking a personal day to protest the unprecedented loss of freedom that has occurred the world over since the COVID pandemic began.
Parents will also pull their children out of school for the day to protest the many restraints that have applied directly to children.
“No government in history has ever surrendered power in the absence of a demand,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD chairman and chief legal counsel. “We need to tell these governments and their friends in the technocracy, the Silicon Valley billionaire boys club, the mainstream media and the pharmaceutical industry that we will no longer tolerate their trampling of citizens’ rights.”
Emboldened by reports of a recent walkout of Southwest employees — which led the airline’s management to drop plans to put unvaccinated employees on unpaid leave — nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers, firefighters and other workers are expected to participate in the protest.
“Coercive mandates of shoddily tested medical products and segregationist passports violate international human rights law,” said CHD President and General Counsel Mary Holland.
Holland added:
“We need brave citizens to peacefully refuse to comply with unlawful and unethical edicts that for the past year-and-a-half have been allowed to trump individual rights and freedoms. Those days are over. There will be no business as usual until segregationist and coercive medical policies advanced by government authorities end once and for all.”
Organizers announced the protest after the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on Tuesday recommended the agency authorize Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization COVID vaccine for children 5 to 11 years old.
The vote to recommend authorization of this vaccine, despite evidence that COVID does not pose a threat to young people, is causing even more unrest among those concerned with the safety of COVID vaccines in all age groups.
From mid-December 2020 through Oct. 15, 2021, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) received 818,044 reports of injury following COVID vaccination, including 17,128 deaths.
“This vote by VRBPAC to put young children at risk of serious injury, and even death, is one more reason people need to stand up to tyranny, and let businesses and governments know we will no longer comply with reckless decisions that threaten the health of our children,” said CHD Executive Director Laura Bono.
CHD chapters, coalition partners and local community organizers are planning mass gatherings of people in peaceful noncompliance to take place in high-exposure areas in many cities and states. Visit “Worldwide Walkout” for locations and details. If you don’t see one for your area, reach out to others in your community to plan an event. Choose a location that is easy to get to and can be seen by many.
Once your date, location and time are in place, tell us your plans so we can help amplify your message.
CHD.TV will carry live coverage of the day’s events.
Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 1
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | October 27, 2021
The people who none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate & business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”
They are the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) and while elected representatives are within their ranks, they don’t set either the agenda or policy. We need to both recognise who the GPPP are and understand the implications of their gambit. How are this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons and why should we resist them?
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policy makers mean by the global commons we can begin to appreciate the jaw dropping magnitude of their ambitions.
They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like ‘inclusive,’ ‘sustainable,’ ‘equity’ and ‘resilience’ are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.
While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), who orchestrated the chaos, have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).
This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.
laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID 19. This was planned.
The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by US President Clinton following the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.
We will need to consider UN Agenda 21 and 2030 in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources, but for now we can reference it to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will explain why politicians around the world have used it.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:
By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards… adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:
The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk;
[…] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership […] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels […] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation…
Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed.. and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.
“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post “disaster” reconstruction. It means the global participation of relevant stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships in order to implement instruments to achieve sustainable development.
SDG 11 (b) was a plan to substantially increase the global number of human settlements adopting “build back better” polices by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.
Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – SCM – were devised by the World Economic Forum, who describe themselves as the international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP to seize the entire Earth, all its resources and everything on it, including us.
In order to control us we are being transitioned into a technocracy with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security and centralised control of the entire system has been established during, and as a result of, the pseudopandemic.
The news IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI or similar state payments) which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC.)
This will ensure our compliance, as Central Banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.
The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” How it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up the Earths resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.
Throughout the pseudopandemic the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Their Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea hundreds, if not thousands of years old.
It is the self-serving belief that some special people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate “democratic” mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption.
The WEF have claimed the supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy. They intend to do this by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”
They have put themselves forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF are not alone in their ambitions, but rather the leading proponents for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of their self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.
The United Nations (UN) acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.
In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013 the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.“
They wrote:
International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space… Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity – have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons… while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace… Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”
This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020 The Rothschild backed bank the Global Environment Facility offered a more extensive list of the shared resources all life relies upon:
In order to protect our global commons… humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”
That coalition is the GPPP and citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they agree to promote the agreed policy agenda.
In December 2020 the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept.
Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the development of Technocracy, he said:
To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken… human activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos… the recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity… It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it… We must turn this momentum into a movement…
Everything is interlinked – the global commons and global well-being…This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas… Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries… More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries… From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line…From classroom education to community engagement…From voting booths to places of work…
We cannot go back to the old normal…We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change… Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world – and with each other.
Again we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us, we are a pestilence that must be controlled; Covid-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same and everything must be transformed.
Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breath), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.
Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), where we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and system, education, the communities we live in and even our relationships, are all to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.
The “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything. All life, all resources, all land, all water, the air, the stars and all of us. It is their intention to have dominion over all.
The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. In June 2021 the WEF wrote the Case for a Digital Commons. Whenever they want to include something else in the list they use the language of sustainable development. It doesn’t matter that this makes no rational sense, the point is to sell the notion with the right buzz-words:
COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”
Now they claim the authority to rule the Internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the tax paying cash cows that will fund the construction of the empire:
In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress… Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems.. as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”
It is truly remarkable that a low mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation.
The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, the authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:
One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years… the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild… It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”
At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019 Schwab wrote What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want.
The “we” referenced in that title was not “us” but rather the GPPP, though the article assumed we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:
Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”
Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. It has a specific legal definition:
The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”
It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with our society. Many of us would disagree which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked. There is no justification for Schwab’s claim.
I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?
Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.
Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and their leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are just people, no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.
They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they imagine this is hard to say.
We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.
There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations. These incorporate global logistics, international finance and cross border regulatory alignment. These world-wide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few, senior board level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same.
However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.
However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader,” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.
Ida Auken
The title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that her article was not intended to describe her “utopia” and that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near term future:
Everything you considered a product, has now become a service… When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people… Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me… We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”
The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons) they will take care of us.
Why, is the obvious question. If they control all of the Earths resources, everything is free and AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly loosing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.
We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID 19 opportunity, a response to a set of crises which gives rise to doing “things differently.”
We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.
As Schwab noted, there was no existential threat. The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not a respiratory disease.
It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. However, when we look at Agenda 21 and 2030 an uncomfortable realisation dawns.
While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect.
The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet, it is that, in Agenda 21 and 2030, the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists.
Make no mistake, the GPPP intend to control every aspect of the Earth and our lives. That is the transformation they are working towards and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.
Combined with SDGs, while we have been preoccupied with a low mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP have not only started building, they have partly completed the new global monetary and financial system.
Once installed this will finalise their coup d’état and enable them to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.
We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part Two.
You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog In This Together or on UK Column. His new book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. Or you can claim a free copy by subscribing to his newsletter.
Nuclear States Unwilling to Live up to Disarmament Commitments: Iran Envoy
Al-Manar – October 29, 2021
Iran’s permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht-Ravanchi slammed the states and regimes who hold nuclear weapons while seek justifications for not abiding by their commitments.
Takht-Ravanchi made the comments after the UN Disarmament and International Security (First Committee) approved the resolution presented by Iran on Thursday, according to IRIB.
“Unfortunately, nuclear weapons holders are unwilling to live up to their nuclear disarmament commitments and only try to justify that the necessary ground is not ready for nuclear disarmament,” the Iranian envoy said, as quoted by Mehr news agency.
He said that their justification cannot be bought and added, “They committed themselves to nuclear disarmament in 1970, and this is not justifiable.”
The Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a resolution the follow-up on the implementation of the agreements reached at the NPT Review Conferences of 1995, 2000 and 2010″, and was adopted with the support of a majority of the members of the UN Disarmament and International Security (First Committee).
In part of the resolution proposed by Iran, the implementation of the decision of the NPT Review Conference in 1995 to establish a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East is emphasized. The decision calls on Israeli regime to join the NPT and accept the International Atomic Energy Agency’s monitoring of its nuclear facilities.
US continues to defy International Court of Justice’s orders in cases filed by Iran
Press TV – October 28, 2021
Iran’s permanent ambassador to the United Nations says the US administration continues to disregard orders issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which have been handed down in cases filed by Iran against US and vice versa.
Majid Takht-Ravanchi made the remarks in an address to the UN General Assembly on Thursday, emphasizing that Iran acknowledges “the vital role of the ICJ in the prevention of hostilities and mitigation of crises through peaceful settlement of disputes as well as in strengthening the rule of law, preserving international order and tackling unilateral measures.”
“Due to adoption of a number of legislative and executive acts in the United States in flagrant violation of international law, the immunity of states and their properties from suit before US courts as well as immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement have been removed against Iran,” he added.
Takht-Ravanchi noted that as a result of the filing of cases in the US courts against Iran as well as its officials and the Central Bank (CBI), “the assets of the CBI have been subjected to execution in order to satisfy a default judgment.”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that such asset blocking and enforcement proceedings against the CBI and certain Iranian companies and banks in the US is in violation of provisions of ‘Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955’ between the two countries,” Iran’s UN envoy said.
Takht-Ravanchi said following the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and the unlawful re-imposition of sanctions against Tehran, Iran filed an application instituting proceedings against the US with regard to violations of multiple provisions of the Treaty of Amity.
He said on October 3, 2018, the ICJ issued an order unanimously requiring the US to remove any impediments on the importation of foodstuffs as well as medicines and medical devices to Iran and also ordered Washington to ensure that the licenses and necessary authorizations are granted and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to the aforementioned goods and services.
“Regrettably, the United States has not only failed to comply with the Court’s Order but, by imposing new sanctions, especially during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, has also deliberately defied that Order,” Takht-Ravanchi said.
Iran, he noted, has on several occasions brought the US non-compliance with the Order to the Court’s attention and the answer provided by the US in this regard has always been a repetition of its previous contentions; that humanitarian transactions are exempt from its sanctions.
However, Takht-Ravanchi added, “through tightening the grip of sanctions after the Court’s Order, the US … violated this Order which requires that ‘Both parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve’.”
Tehran has on multiple occasions called on the United Nations court to order the immediate lifting of the sanctions, and demanded compensation for damages incurred in their wake.
Sanctions had been lifted under the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers- the US, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia.
Former President Donald Trump unilaterally pulled the US out of the deal with Iran in May 2018 and reimposed draconian sanctions as part of the so-called maximum pressure campaign against the country.
Earlier this year, the ICJ ruled that it can take on Iran’s bid to overturn illegal US sanctions re-imposed by Trump after he pulled Washington out of the nuclear deal.
The United States had tried to argue that Iran could not base claims at the ICJ on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the two countries. However, a majority of a panel of 16 judges found the treaty could be used as a basis for the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
The new US administration said it is “disappointed” by the ruling, despite President Joe Biden’s criticism of his predecessor for reinstating the bans on the Islamic Republic after leaving the landmark accord.
Israel to Attack Iran? Washington Gives the Green Light to the ‘Military Option’
By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 28, 2021
Some might recall candidate Joe Biden’s pledge to work to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was a multilateral agreement intended to limit Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA was signed by President Barack Obama in 2015, when Biden was Vice President, and was considered one of the only foreign policy successes of his eight years in office. Other signatories to it were Britain, China, Germany, France, and Russia and it was endorsed by the United Nations. The agreement included unannounced inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities by the IAEA and, by all accounts, it was working and was a non-proliferation success story. In return for its cooperation Iran was to receive its considerable assets frozen in banks in the United States and was also to be relieved of the sanctions that had been placed on it by Washington and other governments.
The JCPOA crashed and burned in 2018 when President Donald Trump ordered U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, claiming that Iran was cheating and would surely move to develop a nuclear weapon as soon as the first phase of the agreement was completed. Trump, whose ignorance on Iran and other international issues was profound, had surrounded himself with a totally Zionist foreign policy team, including members of his own family, and had bought fully into the arguments being made by Israel as well as by Israel Lobby predominantly Jewish groups to include the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Trump’s time in office was spent pandering to Israel in every conceivable way, to include recognizing Jerusalem as the country’s capital, granting Israel the green light for creating and expanding illegal settlements on the West Bank and recognizing the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.
Given Trump’s record, most particularly the senseless and against-American-interests abandonment of JCPOA, it almost seemed a breath of fresh air to hear Biden’s fractured English as he committed his administration to doing what he could to rejoin the other countries who were still trying to make the agreement work. After Biden was actually elected, more or less, he and his Secretary of State Tony Blinken clarified what the U.S. would seek to do to “fix” the agreement by making it stronger in some key areas that had not been part of the original document.
Iran for its part insisted that the agreement did not need any additional caveats and should be a return to the status quo ante, particularly when Blinken and his team made clear that they were thinking of a ban on Iranian ballistic missile development as well as negotiations to end Tehran’s alleged “interference” in the politics of the region. The interference presumably referred to Iranian support of the Palestinians as well as its role in Syria and Yemen, all of which had earned the hostility of American “friends” Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Israel inevitably stirred the pot by sending a stream of senior officials, to include Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to discuss “the Iranian threat” with Biden and his top officials. Lapid made clear that Israel “reserves the right to act at any given moment, in any way… We know there are moments when nations must use force to protect the world from evil.” And to be sure, Biden, like Trump, has also made his true sentiments clear by surrounding himself with Zionists. Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland have filled the three top slots at State Department, all are Jewish and all strong on Israel. Nuland is a leading neocon. And pending is the appointment of Barbara Leaf, who has been nominated Assistant Secretary to head the State Department’s Near East region. She is currently the Ruth and Sid Lapidus Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is an AIPAC spin off and a major component in the Israel Lobby. That means that a member in good standing of the Israel Lobby would serve as the State Department official overseeing American policy in the Middle East.
At the Pentagon one finds a malleable General Mark Milley, always happy to meet his Israeli counterparts, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, an affirmative action promotion who likewise has become adept at parroting the line “Israel has a right to defend itself.” And need one mention ardent self-declared Zionists at the top level of the Democratic Party, to include Biden himself, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and, of course, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?
So rejoining the JCPOA over Israel objections was a non-starter from the beginning and was probably only mooted to make Trump look bad. Indirect talks including both Iran and the U.S. technically have continued in Vienna, though they have been stalled since the end of June. Trita Parsi has recently learned that Iran sought to make a breakthrough for an agreement by seeking a White House commitment to stick with the plan as long as Biden remains in office. Biden and Blinken refused and Blinken has recently confirmed that a new deal is unlikely, saying “time is running out.”
And there have been some other new developments. Israeli officials have been warning for over twenty years that Iran is only one year away from having its own nukes and needs to be stopped, a claim that has begun to sound like a religious mantra repeated over and over, but now they are actually funding the armaments that will be needed to do the job. Israel Defense Force Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi has repeatedly said the IDF is “accelerating” plans to strike Iran, and Israeli politicians to include former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have regularly been threatening to do whatever must be done to deal with the threat from the Islamic Republic. Israeli media is reporting that $1.5 billion has been allocated in the current and upcoming budget to buy the American bunker buster bombs that will be needed to destroy the Iranian reactor at Bushehr and its underground research facilities at Natanz.
In the wake of the news about the war funding, there have also been reports that the Israeli Air Force is engaging in what is being described as “intense” drills to simulate attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. After Israel obtains the 5000 pound bunker buster bombs, it will also need to procure bombers to drop the ordnance, and one suspects that the U.S. Congress will somehow come up with the necessary “military aid” to make that happen. Tony Blinken has also made clear that the Administration knows what Israel is planning and approves. He met with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid on October 13th and said if diplomacy with Iran fails, the U.S. will turn to “other options.” And yes, he followed that up with the venerable line that “Israel has the right to defend itself and we strongly support that proposition.”
Lapid confirmed that one of Blinken’s “options” was military action. “I would like to start by repeating what the Secretary of State just said. Yes, other options are going to be on the table if diplomacy fails. And by saying other options, I think everybody understands here … what is it that we mean.” It must be observed that in their discussion of Iran’s nuclear program, Lapid and Blinnken were endorsing an illegal and unprovoked attack to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon that it is apparently not seeking, but which it will surely turn to as a consequence if only to defend itself in the future.
In short, U.S. foreign policy is yet again being held hostage by Israel. The White House position is clearly and absurdly that an Israeli attack on Iran, considered a war crime by most, is an act of self-defense. However it turns out, the U.S. will be seen as endorsing the crime and will inevitably be implicated in it, undoubtedly resulting in yet another foreign policy disaster in the Middle East with nothing but grief for the American people. The simple truth is that Iran has neither threatened nor attacked Israel. Given that, there is nothing defensive about the actions Israel has already taken in sabotaging Iranian facilities and assassinating scientists, and there would be nothing defensive about direct military attacks either with or without U.S. assistance on Iranian soil. If Israel chooses to play the fool it is on them and their leaders. The United States does not have a horse in this race and should butt out, but one doubts if a White House and Congress, firmly controlled by Zionist forces, have either the wisdom or the courage to cut the tie that binds with the Jewish state.
As evidence emerges of provocateurs inciting the Jan 6 Capitol riot, was an asset working on behalf of the FBI to stir up trouble?
By Kit Klarenberg | RT | October 27, 2021
The bureau has form for this modus operandi, after all. Just what was the role of mysterious ex-Marine Ray Epps in fomenting the invasion? And why’s he been removed from the list of suspects and not been arrested?
Ever since January 6, speculation has abounded that the US authorities either knew what was going to transpire in advance and allowed it to happen, or undercover state infiltrators played some role or other in orchestrating the upheaval.
While acknowledging that FBI informants were on the ground that day, and, indeed, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers – two far-right groups that played prominent roles in the Capitol break-in and preceding protests – both have intimate ties to the Bureau at the highest levels, the latter theory has been universally dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense.
Yet, given the agency’s history, the notion isn’t so far-fetched. After all, for decades during the Cold War, the FBI operated a dedicated counter-intelligence program, known as COINTELPRO, that sought to infiltrate, undermine and discredit activist groups and protest movements from within. A key tactic engaged in by undercover provocateurs was marshalling others to engage in violence.
More recently, in October 2020, the bureau foiled a deranged plot hatched by the Wolverine Watchmen militia group to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It’s been revealed that 12 of the individuals involved in the doomed conspiracy were FBI informants.
Now, pro-Trump website Revolver has offered the most compelling evidence yet that undercover provocateurs of some distinction were pivotal to the events of January 6.
The website records how, by January 8, the FBI had assembled mugshots of its first 20 ‘most wanted’ Capitol rioters, offering cash rewards for successful identifications and fruitful leads. It took just three days for resourceful Antifa activists to pinpoint ‘Suspect 16’ as Arizona resident Ray Epps, a former high-ranking US Marine. Swathes of evidence supported the identification, including, somewhat amazingly, a direct admission by the man himself to his local newspaper, the Arizona Central.
Published January 11, the report discussed how Epps had been approached by the outlet and asked for comment about a widely circulated video from the night of January 5, in which someone closely resembling him boldly proclaimed to a crowd of fellow Trump supporters, “We need to go into the Capitol.” He confirmed he was that individual, but played down the significance of his comments, alleging that the “only thing” he meant was “we would go in the doors like everyone else.”
He went on to assert that the violent manner in which protesters subsequently entered was “totally, totally wrong,” but did not clarify why, in the same clip, he also declared, “I’ll be arrested” for proposing they gain entry to the building in the first place.
In the following weeks, news reports of arrests of individuals who’d busted into the Capitol were published almost daily, although Epps’ name never came up. Indeed, the FBI seems to have taken no decisive action in this regard until almost six months later, and, even then, not in a manner most would have expected. At an indeterminate point on July 1, between the wee hours of the morning and early evening, his mugshot was abruptly removed from the bureau’s most-wanted list, leaving an unaccounted-for gap between Suspects 15 and 17.
There is no indication that this was because he had been arrested. In every other case of a successful arrest, the corresponding photo of the suspect in question is slapped with an “arrested” logo, and Epps’ name doesn’t appear in the dedicated, searchable Justice Department Capitol Breach Cases database. Quite why he apparently remains at liberty is perplexing, although how he came so quickly to the FBI’s attention is no mystery.
The video referenced by the Arizona paper is one of many depicting Epps aggressively advocating the breach of the Capitol from January 5 onwards. That evening saw a law enforcement-mediated standoff between Trump supporters visiting Washington DC for the next day’s planned and widely promoted protest, and Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists.
Strikingly, an aspect of that particular clip not mentioned in the news report is the extremely hostile reaction his bold suggestion elicited from those around him. After he repeatedly advocated “going in”, other pro-Trump protesters respond with a shouted chorus of “no!”, before chanting in unison “Fed!” over and over, prompting Epps to awkwardly clarify that he meant “peacefully”.
Multiple separate clips show Epps moving between different groups in the crowd, and repeating the same routine, loudly calling for attendees to enter the Capitol building, and typically being met with indifference or even outright antipathy. In one, his audience’s exhaustion with his antics is evident – he asks for “one minute” to make his pitch yet again to another group of Trump supporters, but the throng responds that he has only “30 seconds”, despite a sympathetic protester drawing attention to Epps’ military background and calling for him to be respected.
This activity alone would surely mark him out as of interest to the FBI – after all, determining the degree to which what transpired on January 6 was planned in advance and, if so, by whom, were central initial questions in its probe that remain unanswered. However, Epps’ movements the next day, much of which was likewise captured on film, would make him one of the most valuable sources of information on the Capitol’s infiltration.
Revolver meticulously reviews numerous videos showing Epps apparently issuing orders to a masked Capitol rioter, seemingly also a former US Marine, who appears to have been armed with super-strength bear mace, to have engaged in a range of incendiary acts, and to have repeatedly provoked other protesters to commit violent acts and not back down from law enforcement. That rioter, Suspect 273 – also known as #MaroonPB – coincidentally remains at large today, too.
Even more tantalisingly, though, one clip shows Epps right on the frontline when the protest turned violent and the police barricades were broken through for the first time. Ryan Samsel, who has been blamed for kickstarting the “insurrection”, is pictured standing in front of the barricade, in a bitter showdown with the officer behind.
Epps emerges from the left of the frame, takes Samsel aside, whispers something in his ear, then vanishes. Moments later, Samsel and others begin charging at the barricades, knocking them down – a pivotal act that allowed for the eventual deluge of protesters into the Capitol. Media reports in the immediate aftermath of January 6 suggested the infiltrators’ path was effectively laid by the DC Police’s failure to deploy precautions such as ‘frozen zones’ (areas officially off-limits) and the hardened barriers commonly used for major events.
Samsel was arrested just three weeks after January 6 – conspicuously, he’s one of only a few individuals accused of comprising the large “breach team” who’s been taken into custody. According to his attorney, in prison, he’s been subjected to vicious torture, his jaw, nose and orbital bone having all been shattered, and his right eye damaged so badly he may be permanent half-blind.
Almost a year later, we’re still no closer to learning the truth about January 6. In the meantime, that date has been endlessly invoked by lawmakers, pundits and journalists as a grave attack on US values and democracy. Some have compared the event to 9/11, while the White House has likened it to the Civil War and proposed wide-ranging new domestic spying powers to avert another such catastrophe.
Consideration of how state capitol buildings have been repeatedly invaded during protests in the past, and DC’s Capitol Hill was overwhelmed at the conclusion of the 2017 Women’s March, has been entirely lacking. But that doesn’t fit the narrative many powerful people wish to perpetuate about January 6, so this staggering oversight is unsurprising. That the show trials of the 648 people charged in connection with the riot so far will shed no light on potential deep-state machinations that day is likewise almost inevitable.
Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.
Featured Video
Spain train disaster raises questions over Israeli-linked security contractors
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Are There 50,000 ‘Israeli-born’ Individuals Living in the UK?
By Professor David Miller | August 18, 2026
Recent disclosures by the Zionist regime show that some 2,069 British nationals were serving in the IDF as of March 2025, according to Freedom of Information (FoI) requests submitted to the occupation forces (1,686 dual British-Israeli, plus 383 multinational). We cannot tell from the figures how many of these were already settler colonists and intend to stay in the colony, and how many will return or have returned to the UK. Presumably, those returning to the UK will number far fewer than 2,000, since many are known to have become permanently residents of the colony.
Additionally, the IDF figures only provide a snapshot, and do not tell us how many have served in the Jewish supremacist military either before or after March 2025. One way into the question of how many genocidaires are living in Britain is to ask how many current British residents were born in the Zionist colony. There is data on that, as we shall see. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The beginning of the end: Israel at the heart of America’s political civil war
- US-Israeli war on Iran cost Persian Gulf states nearly $1T in damage, lost growth: Report
- Congress probe could put ‘Israel’ in dock over Iran war: Israeli media
- Spanish public prosecutor backs US demand to extradite pro-Palestine philanthropist Fergie Chambers
- Zelensky spent over 740 days outside Ukraine while West serves as his real home
- Indian captain of Russian ‘shadow fleet’ tanker faces 10-year jail term in UK
- Europe, US face higher heating bills amid Iran war fallout
- The Leak That Arrived Right on Cue
- No, New York Times, California’s Climate Has Always Been a Land of Flood, Drought, and Fire
- Are There 50,000 ‘Israeli-born’ Individuals Living in the UK?
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- German Authorities Start Initiative To Evaluate Public Register For Climate “Disinformation” Spreaders!
- Zonal Asymmetry of Temperature Change in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current
- New Study: The Net Fossil Fuel Contribution To Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Been Zero For 500 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Transition Becoming Increasingly Expensive…Another 6 Trillion Euros!
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
