Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

BOOK REVIEW: A State Of Fear by Laura Dodsworth 

Pinter & Martin; paperback, £9.99. Published 17 May 2021 

By Jon Dobinson | Think Scotland | May 18, 2021

IN HER INTRODUCTION to ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth writes, “We don’t like to believe we can be manipulated, let alone that we have been manipulated – this book may hurt.”

Hurt it will, pitilessly exposing by turns the damage that fear has done to us over the past year, the way that terror eclipses reason or common-sense, and the way it has been weaponised to control us by the Government’s behavioural scientists. If you care about the future of liberty and democracy in the UK, this book will not help you sleep at night. It may however find a place at the top the pile on your bedside table: its hard-hitting chapters read once with shock and maybe, for some, a degree of incredulity, but then referred to again with increasing belief and conviction as a new revelation, campaign or headline brings home a key theme or passage.

It’s well researched and rigorously factual, but passion and anger shine through every page. They turn it from a dry analysis into a page-turning thriller in which we repeatedly discover ourselves as protagonist, victim, or supporting cast. The anecdotes and observations resonate with moments from our own lives over the past eighteen months, making personal the revelations about the polished levers and engines which generated them.

In a book about fear, perhaps the most frightening point of all is just how easy it now is to control a democratic society through the levers of behavioural science. Without debate or public consent, the Government has built capabilities in department after department to control how we think, feel, and act subliminally using cutting-edge psychology, research and communication. The advent of Covid-19 turbocharged these teams, which were headed by the SPI-B behavioural science committee and handed almost unlimited power and money. As the discipline with the greatest representation on SAGE, behavioural scientists carried more weight in the pandemic even than virologists and medical experts.

Likely anticipating the charge that she has succumbed to the dark theories of those who smell conspiracy in every action of Government, Dodsworth has rigorously researched and checked her claims. What emerges is comprehensive, informative and authoritative: page after page rings true and makes one nod as an anecdote of the past year strikes a chord.

Dodsworth vividly illuminates not just the effects fear has had, but how it influences us and why we are so prone to these extreme reactions. The expert insight and personal testimony show both how fear was created and how it took control of the population, often driving victims to extremes of behaviour that they view in hindsight as totally out of character.

Little here is speculative: the book deals in what we can see and know of events over the past year. It draws on highly-placed sources, though sadly many of those with real inside knowledge are quoted anonymously as they were too frightened of losing their careers to go on the record. This inevitably raises questions over the credibility of their claims, but it’s impossible to dismiss what they say because the substantiation is robust, the evidence convincing, and it so often chimes with personal experience.

At one point, a source in Government is quoted as saying,

“Hancock is quite paranoid and a total ‘wet’. He’s a real panicker.”

This will surprise few people – we can all see Hancock’s shortcomings – but these moments of recognition are important in building our understanding of the way in which politicians moved so quickly from championing freedom to enforcing repression. ‘The fear spread from the health department to the other departments and they all fell under the spell of the SAGE scientists foretelling doom’.

This was a different kind of fear to that felt by the public: fear not of the illness itself, but of its political fall-out. Politicians were terrified of failing in any step which might later be found to have saved lives. The virus might not represent a deadly threat to the vast majority of British people, but it could certainly be lethal to their own prospects for electoral success.

An insider tells Dodsworth that ministers fear ‘they’ll get hauled through the press for their own mistakes and that’s worse for them than ruining people’s businesses.’

This spectre still stalks Whitehall. I’m told that from March 2020 onwards, any Civil Servant minded to reject tough restrictions has simply been asked, ‘what will you tell the Inquiry?’ Few are brave enough to resist that threat. Yet it only works one way – deaths and suffering from Covid-19 may bring retribution. Deaths and suffering caused by restrictions are so unimportant to the decision-makers that they have not even bothered to consider whether the harm of measures may outweigh the benefits. Recovery has been campaigning since its launch for the coming Covid-19 inquiry to be comprehensive, investigating the full impact of the measures taken, positive and negative: this is why it’s so important.

We now know beyond question that the consequences of the Government action will be devastating for many, from the thousands who have not been treated or diagnosed with cancers over the past year to the millions whose livelihoods have gone. The mental health impact alone has been enormous and experts warn that some will bear the scars for life – including many children. This is vividly brought to life via the personal experiences which preface each chapter of the book.

Yet fear sells above all else. Broadcasters have enjoyed unprecedented viewing figures while Covid-19 has raged. An Ofcom report in September found that the average UK adult spent 6 hours 25 minutes watching content in April 2020 – up by an hour and a half from 2019.

That kind of power over eyeballs brings huge influence and profits, so broadcasters who gorge on drama and sensation grow fat. The reporters who provide it win pay rises and awards. For them, the best scientist is not the most accurate or eminent expert, but the one who produces the most wild and exciting prediction: the one which will really get viewers scared.

Reporters rush from No.10 conference to Covid ward with breathless anticipation of a child at a theme park racing from the dodgems to a rollercoaster. It’s what happens next that matters: the next scary number, the next variant. Checking whether the last prediction came true is dull. Boring old cancer and heart disease may be the bigger killers, but they’re old news. No-one has pushed a camera in the face of the grieving relatives of a cancer patient who was turned away for treatment or a worried oncologist. If you want to be heard, you have to talk Covid.

The pressure on Government is no longer to do what is best for the country, but what is best for the story. Over and over again, this leads to poor decision-making. Leaders are rewarded not for good policy, but for media-friendly sound-bites. Today, the business of Government has become less about doing what is right and more about doing what will play out best on the airwaves. Managing the opinion of the country has become more important than managing the country. Behind closed doors, our leaders have taken the logical next step.

Dodsworth reveals how successive governments have assembled a vast interconnected machine for producing and weaponizing fear with the explicit aim of controlling behaviour. Those who operate it argue that their intentions are good.

It’s the old paternalist thinking with a high-tech upgrade. People can’t be trusted to make the correct choices if they are given access to information and left to decide for themselves. So they must be subliminally ‘nudged’ in the right direction (or, during Covid-19, bludgeoned). Information which might disrupt the narrative is suppressed. Those who choose for us won’t admit the possibility that they could get it wrong. We, the ordinary people, are fallible; they are not. As Dodsworth says,

“Nudge is clever people in government making sure the not-so-clever people do what they want.”

All this was already happening prior to Covid-19. Yet it was little studied. A colossal machine was assembled out of public sight without any consideration as to the ethics and consequences, since those involved saw their goals as good and the ends as justifying the means.

As Dodsworth finds, its workings are wrapped in shadow. Attempting to dissect its component parts, she identifies some of the departments involved, but beyond confirming their existence, no-one in Government will answer her questions. In a book which contains many shocks, not least is how much of all this is being hidden from us in our supposedly free and democratic society. Not only are our strings to be pulled without our conscious knowledge, the details of how and why we are being manipulated must be hidden from us, lest we see through the tricks and hold the puppet-masters to account.

Behavioural science regards the mass of humanity as no more than rats in a maze, to be prodded down one alley and forbidden another. The scientists wish to control the rats: they do not accept that the rats should have any control over them.

These are disturbing claims, but the more they are researched, the more substantiation can be found. For example, she refers to the questionable role of Ofcom in enforcing a distorted narrative across the broadcast media, citing the guidance issued to broadcasters on 23 March 2020. This says that any report featuring content around Covid-19 which ‘may be harmful’ will be subject to statutory sanction.

As she points out, these comparatively innocuous words in practice force broadcasters to censure a huge amount of critical content, even where it is accurate, especially where it tends to calm fears or reassure people, since fear has been used to maximise compliance with restrictions.

An online search reveals that this was followed by additional Ofcom guidance on 27 March 2020, which is chillingly explicit. For example, it prohibits the broadcasting of ‘medical or other advice which… discourages the audience from following official rules and guidance.’ There’s no ambiguity here. Ofcom is telling broadcasters that they cannot allow informed, expert opinion, no matter how accurate or important, if it conflicts with the official guidance. This is extraordinary.

It gives added bite to her central point: ‘any regulator charged with upholding freedom of expression – as is the case with Ofcom – should proceed to restrict that freedom only on a closely reasoned basis. That is something Ofcom has manifestly failed to do.”

In the process, it has turned our theoretically impartial broadcasters into mere cheerleaders for restrictions. She argues that what they report is no longer news: “There is a word for only sharing information which is biased and used to promote a political cause: propaganda.”

Could the BBC have done more to preserve its integrity? When reporting restrictions were imposed on it during the Gulf War, it prefaced reports with a reminder that restrictions were in place. It could have done the same here, alerting viewers to the controls on pandemic reporting. It chose not to do so and therefore the public is unaware that anything has changed.

Her interview with Piers Robinson, Co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, concludes with the stark warning, ”It is not inconceivable that we are walking into an absolute nightmare in which freedom of speech and debate become significantly curtailed.”

It’s one of many moments in the book where you catch yourself thinking, ‘can this really be happening?’ It’s hard to believe that we have lost so many freedoms without a whisper from the supposed parliamentary Opposition, or that a leader who has championed our liberties so loudly in the past has moved so decisively to remove them.

‘A State Of Fear’ is essential reading if you want to understand how majority backing for the uniquely repressive response to Covid-19 was engineered so quickly. It’s a deeply troubling tale. However, it raises broader concerns about a world in which the combined power of psychology, technology, media and research are increasingly being used to dictate our choices without our knowledge or consent.

These questions go to the heart of our humanity and the kind of world we want for ourselves and our children. How many of us really want to live in fear, even if it means we are protected from our own misjudgements? Can governments be trusted with subliminal tools so powerful that they can instruct us what to think? With ‘A State Of Fear’, Laura Dodsworth has launched a vital debate.


About Recovery 

Recovery formed last October to campaign for the Five Reasonable Demands for good government during Covid-19, a moderate, balanced alternative to the Government’s damaging approach to Covid-19, which experts have warned will end up costing many more lives than it saves and the Government itself says has already cost the country as much as the entire Second World War.   

For Recovery’s campaign against fear go to: www.timeforrecovery.org/fear  

Jon Dobinson, is a co-founder and Campaign Director of Recovery, and MD of award winning advertising agency Other. He is a former D&AD judge and Chair of the Creative Jury of the International Business Awards.

September 14, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

COVID Vaccine Dystopia: A Manifesto

By Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn | Principia Scientific | September 9, 2021

A warning is appropriate. Reading this article with a large amount of medical science information will likely increase your anxiety and fear. The views of many distinguished medical experts paint a bleak view of COVID vaccines.

The likely reaction to the science is very different than the fear constantly propagated by the evil Dr. Fauci and his supporters. Here is the difference: They want you to fear the COVID virus and to accept vaccination, masking, lockdowns, school closings, and other forms of medical tyranny. With extensive data and expert assessments, this manifesto defines a vaccine dystopia.

It is a terrible condition where fear of the virus is replaced by fear of the vaccines – supposedly the remedy for the virus. This manifesto supports a different solution to the virus: Give greater attention and importance to a host of treatment protocols that can and should replace unsafe vaccines.

Another dimension to revolting against the vaccine dystopia is the need to reclaim personal medical freedom – your right to determine what medicine and vaccine to put into your body, not the government, especially when the government has a biased, one-sided view of vaccine safety.

Introduction
We are at the edge of history, in a global society where there is great suffering and injustice because of the widespread commitment to getting the entire population jabbed with COVID vaccines that the government claims are safe.

As shown below, in truth there are ever-increasing deaths and harmful health impacts from all the COVID vaccines. But governments do not give credence to the many awful health impacts of the vaccines, no matter how many esteemed physicians and medical researchers present evidence for stopping vaccination efforts.

The political and medical establishments keep using the same insensitive argument. No matter how many people die from the vaccines – often within days of getting jabbed – those in power proclaim that more lives are saved from using the vaccines against COVID than are lost due to them.

So many thousands of people worldwide have died from the jabs, probably 100,000 or more based on data from CDC, the European Union, and other nations. But negative vaccine impacts are largely ignored by big media, the public health system, and authoritarian politicians.

Sneaking into the public limelight are some famous people dying from the shots from the realms of sports, entertainment, and politics. But these are easily forgotten or ignored. Or seen as exceptions, statistically speaking.

In our quickly evolving vaccine dystopia, the vaccinated are granted many rewards and the unvaccinated are shamed, castigated, and bullied.

We have not yet reached the critical inflection point where the many medical voices against vaccines (given below) prevail. Their voices are suppressed by big media; their medical science arguments and data are ignored. The result is that most of the population remain victims and slaves to massive propaganda about the benefits of vaccines.

Ignored are not only the ill vaccine effects but also the enormous financial benefits obtained by makers of vaccines. Medical experts are unable to win the battle despite their science-based critiques of the vaccines. Yet what else can they do than to keep offering their expert medical advice?

Insanity is often defined as maintaining behavior that is proven wrong, destructive, and unhealthy. In our nascent vaccine dystopia, those with power keep pushing more vaccinations even as the death toll and harmful health impacts keep mounting, and vaccine effectiveness shrinks.

Keep pushing more shots as if a magical solution to COVID will emerge. Medical experts say it will not. COVID will never be completely eradicated. Proven cheap, safe and effective treatments using generic medicines like ivermectin must be seen as safe and effective alternatives to vaccines.

Perhaps over time vaccine-induced deaths and serious adverse health impacts will become so visible that the powerful vaccine machine will grind to a halt. Why? Because authoritarian and dystopian societies eventually collapse. However, only after incredible numbers of people have died and suffered.

The many anti-vaccine medical experts cited below will have little pleasure from being ignored and criticized for so long only, eventually, to be seen as correct. Some kind of revolution is needed to overturn the multi-pronged vaccine empire.

Below are data, scientific judgments, and new studies and analyses that present compelling evidence against mass COVID vaccination. This is all we can do right now to fight vaccine dystopia and nourish the needed revolution.

New analysis of all major vaccines

Physician J. Bart Classen published an extremely valuable analysis. He examined clinical trial data from all three of the major vaccine makers and found their vaccines cause more harm than good. Here are highlights from his article.

Data were “reanalyzed using ‘all-cause severe morbidity,’ a scientific measure of health, as the primary endpoint. ‘All-cause severe morbidity in the treatment group and control group was calculated by adding all severe events reported in the clinical trials.

Severe events included both severe infections with COVID-19 and all other severe adverse events in the treatment arm and control arm respectively. This analysis gives a reduction in severe COVID-19 infections the same weight as adverse events of equivalent severity. Results prove that none of the vaccines provide a health benefit and all pivotal trials show a statically significant increase in ‘all-cause severe morbidity’ in the vaccinated group compared to the placebo group.”

In other words, he found that each of the vaccines caused more severe events in the immunized group than in the control group. No safety.

This was his main conclusion:

“Based on this data it is all but a certainty that mass COVID-19 immunization is hurting the health of the population in general. Scientific principles dictate that the mass immunization with COVID-19 vaccines must be halted immediately because we face a looming vaccine induced public health catastrophe.”

Manipulation of data
So many actions are pure fraud, designed to deceive the public and push a media story that makes unvaccinated people look bad.

The trick used by CDC that was revealed in some publications, but not big media, is to count the deaths of fully vaccinated people as unvaccinated if the deaths occurred within 14 days of their final vaccination.

Their goal was to make unvaccinated people look like pandemic culprits causing the continued spread of COVID. Indeed, what big media did produce to influence public opinion was that unvaccinated people were the problem.

All this to convince more people to get vaccinated.

In truth, the medical reality is that vaccinated people are dying for two reasons. Some are inflicted with serious health impacts from the vaccines themselves, such as blood clots that kill people from strokes and other maladies. Second, many are victims of breakthrough COVID infections that can cause death because vaccines over time become increasingly ineffective in protecting against COVID.

One astute critic said this: “This means if someone was hospitalized, admitted to ICU, required mechanical ventilation, or died within two weeks of getting the jab they are being counted as ‘unvaccinated,’” said Kelen McBreen. “The entire [CDC] report can basically be tossed into the trash thanks to the inclusion of the recently vaccinated in the unvaccinated category,” wrote McBreen.

“This intentionally misleading data is now being used to infringe on the rights of the people of California and across the entire United States as vaccine mandates and passports are being rolled out nationwide.”

To add more context to what CDC has done, consider the following report of a revelation by a whistleblower.

In sworn testimony, she claimed to have proof that 45,000 Americans have died within three days of receiving their COVID-19 shot.

The declaration is part of a lawsuit America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) against U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. That is a remarkably higher number than CDC has reported.

According to the whistleblower’s sworn document, she is “a computer programmer with subject matter expertise in the healthcare data analytics field, an honor that allows me access to Medicare and Medicaid data maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).”

After verifying data from the CDC’s adverse reaction tracking system VAERS, the whistleblower focused only on individuals who died within three days of receiving their shot.

“It is my professional estimate that VAERS (the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5,” she added. She came to that conclusion by examining the Medicare and Medicaid data in respect to those who died within three days of vaccination.

It should be noted that some years ago a Harvard study found that the system could be undercounting by a factor of 10 to 100.

Her statement also made an important point regarding how the COVID pandemic is not being managed the way previous vaccines have been treated.  “Put in perspective, the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market which only resulted in 53 deaths,” said the statement.

EXAMPLE OF WHY 12 -DAY CDC PRACTICE IS FRAUDULENT

Back in January, there was a news story about the death of 56-year old Florida doctor Gregory Michael who died from a rare autoimmune disorder he developed on December 21 three days after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. His wife said that in her mind his death was 100% linked to the vaccine.

One doctor came forward publicly to say he also believed the vaccine caused the victim to develop acute idiopathic-thrombocytopenic-purpura (ITP), the blood disorder, and brain hemorrhage that killed him.

Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, who was not involved in Dr. Michael’s care, said “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related. It happened and it could happen again.”

His medical reasons were that the disorder came on quickly after the shot, and “was so severe that it made his platelet count ‘rocket’ down.” Over the following months, huge amounts of medical research documented vaccine-induced blood problems, including the one that hit the Florida physician.

There is still more to the data corruption designed to send a deceitful message to the public. A July story noted: “a physician contacted the Globe and said testing protocol from Scripts [health care system] is indicating that they aren’t testing the vaccinated in the hospitals – they are only testing the unvaccinated for COVID despite the many COVID breakthrough cases reported.

The physician contacted another hospital and reported to the Globe : ‘They HAVE NOT been testing the vaccinated for COVID routinely like they have the unvaccinated, but they JUST changed their policy to begin doing this.’ Unbelievable! So all this BS in the newspapers has been spewing about the vaccinated NOT having COVID BECAUSE THEY DON’T TEST FOR IT!”

All this was done very likely in hospitals all over the nation so that big media could push the story that there was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

There is still more corruption to acknowledge.

In 2020 CDC issued new instructions for medical examiners, coroners, and physicians to give more credit for COVID as the cause of death. Pre-existing conditions or comorbidities were to be recorded in Part II rather than Part I of death certificates.

This was a major rule change from the 2003 handbooks to be used for reporting deaths. This single change resulted in significant inflation of COVID-19 fatalities by instructing that COVID-19 be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than listed in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions, as would have been done using the 2003 guidelines.

The result was significant inflation in COVID fatality totals by as much as 1600% above what they would be had the CDC used the 2003 handbooks. It comes down to what many people now understand, namely so many people die with COVID but not FROM COVID.

As a final example of data corruption and shortcomings, consider what was revealed at a recent meeting of nurses. They explained what they are facing in their hospital work, which also helps explain why so many nurses and physicians have refused vaccination.

One nurse said she ran an ER department, and that it was tragic that they were seeing so many heart attacks and strokes, and that it is obvious that they are related to the COVID-19 shots. Another nurse stated that she was never trained about how to submit a report to VAERS about vaccine adverse events, and did not even know it existed until she did some research on her own.

She said there is pressure to NOT report vaccine injuries and deaths, and it takes about 30 minutes to fill out the report, which few will do.

In our blossoming vaccine dystopia, you cannot trust information coming from big media, the government, and the medical establishment.

British and other International data show vaccine truths

A new report with detailed data from Public Health England provides some startling numbers. For the period of February 1 through August 2, there were COVID Delta variant cases for 47,000 people who had received 2 vaccine doses, and for 151,054 people who were unvaccinated.

In the first group of vaccinated people, there were a total of 402 deaths. In the second much larger group with more than three times unvaccinated people, there were just 253 deaths. In other words, of the total COVID deaths 61 percent were in fully vaccinated people.

To get the death rate you divide the number of deaths by the total number of infection cases. That gives a death rate of .86 percent among the vaccinated and .17 percent among the unvaccinated.

That is an amazing difference. The death rate among vaccinated was just over five times greater than that for the unvaccinated.

Five times greater! In other words, unvaccinated people who got infected were enormously safer from death. Proving that COVID vaccines are not safe.

How can we explain this huge difference in terms of medical science?

It should also be noted that it was determined that the measured viral load in both groups was the same. So, why are vaccinated people dying more frequently than the unvaccinated? Here are some plausible explanations.

First, there is something very dangerous and unsafe in the COVID vaccines associated with spike proteins that are causing people to die at a higher rate.

For example, as discussed elsewhere, all current vaccines have been associated with serious blood problems, notably both large and microscopic blood clots. Many people have died from brain bleeds and strokes, for example.

There are also many, many other types of adverse side effects causing a host of medical problems.

Two famous virologists warned against using the current vaccines because they are fundamentally unsafe and could be killing people. They envisioned a vaccine dystopia and loudly proclaimed that the mass vaccination program should be halted.

Instead, they advocated the use of treatments using generic medicines like ivermectin, as detailed in Pandemic Blunder. As well as strengthening natural immunity.

Second, it is reasonable to believe that most unvaccinated people have acquired natural immunity from some prior COVID infection. And that natural immunity is far more protective than the artificial or vaccine immunity obtained from jabs. Their natural immunity translates to fewer deaths.

Yet the US like many other countries does not give credit for natural immunity on a par with vaccine immunity when it comes to COVID passports and mandates. Though a few nations do the right thing by honestly following the science.

Third, vaccinated people are susceptible to breakthrough infections, which means that they are not protected against infection after they have been originally infected. Phony and dangerous COVID vaccines do not destroy the virus, nor prevent transmitting it to others. Some breakthrough infections are lethal.

Putting aside problems with CDC data, the death rate found in the UK for vaccinated people translates to about 1,300 deaths for vaccinated Americans. Indeed, an August report revealed that new CDC data indicated 1,507 people of those fully vaccinated died.

It seems like these figures are only for breakthrough infection deaths because the CDC VAERS database indicates more than 6,000 vaccine deaths (through August 27) that are reported as vaccine adverse effects. [But nearly 14,000 deaths apparently when non-US data are included.]

A higher death rate from COVID for vaccinated people in the US compared to other countries might be related to a generally unhealthier population with more serious health conditions, notably high levels of obesity.

Just days ago, it was reported that West Virginia saw a 25 percent increase in deaths of people that are fully vaccinated over the last eight weeks. At the same time, it was reported that in Massachusetts 144 people fully vaccinated also died from COVID, an 80 percent increase from several weeks earlier, and that new total translates to about 4,800 for the whole nation.

In New Jersey, there was a 16 percent increase in breakthrough deaths recently.

The new data from England involving very large numbers of people should be headline news. But the biased and dishonest big media suppress this kind of critical data. Why?

Clearly, if vaccinated people die at a much higher rate than unvaccinated people, then why should people be enthusiastic about being vaccinated for initial shots or later booster ones? They should not. This is especially true for the millions of people who have natural immunity.

Data from other countries merits attention because of still more proof of the deficiencies of the COVID vaccines.

In August director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated.

Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.

A few days later, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported that 95 percent of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated and that they make up 85% to 90% of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths show 87% of those who have died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated.

In Ireland, 18 percent of COVID deaths were in fully vaccinated people.

There is only one rational conclusion from examining all the foreign data: COVID vaccines are both unsafe and ineffective.

Great article on vaccine failure

This recent article displays a lot of wisdom about COVID vaccines; here are some excerpts.

“The Corona vaccines don’t work very well. Ubiquitous statistics showing that the vaccinated enjoy substantial protection against serious illness and death seem wrong. In some cases, they are probably manipulated. They are certainly confounded by the different testing regimes to which the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are subjected. Once you forget the specifics of efficacy and look at the broader picture, it is easy to see where we are. The vaccines have not reduced Corona mortality compared to the same time last year in any jurisdiction that I know of. Countries with high vaccination rates are now seeing the same number of deaths, or more, as they had at the beginning of September 2020.

“The vaccinated remain substantially protected against serious illness or death, but the unvaccinated are entering the hospital and dying at very high rates indeed as if to compensate. Thus Israel has maintained the same case fatality rate of around 0.7%, before and after mass vaccination.

“Vaccines against coronaviruses have been used in animals for decades, and none of them work very well. Generally, they begin to fail after a few months. Despite their technical sophistication, our mRNA and vector vaccines against SARS-2 are no different. They had some success when they were first rolled out, but if anything that probably made things worse.

“Our universal vaccination campaigns worked just well enough to speed up the evolutionary processes that are always and everywhere optimizing Corona.” That means the virus keeps outwitting us.

“It is impossible to believe that this failure was not foreseen. The scientists who developed the vaccines knew for sure how things would play out. That’s why they concluded the trials after three or four months and vaccinated their controls. It’s why they have been talking about boosters from the very beginning. It’s why, if you listened carefully, you never heard Zero Covid sloganeering coming from Team Vaccine. Only the comparative morons on Team Lockdown ever talked like that.

“Our politicians and our new public health dictators, on the other hand, remained oblivious to the limited potential of the vaccines. They continue to insist on universal vaccination and green passes, while it is obvious that these will do nothing to influence the course of the pandemic.

“Corona policy in every western country has unfolded more or less according to the same script, devised by the World Health Organisation at the end of February 2020. The final act was supposed to be the wide-scale eradication of Corona after mass vaccination. It is now clear that this will never happen. For the first time since March 2020, there is no obvious international consensus on the way forward.

“A few countries, or perhaps even a few prominent politicians or public health pundits who do not have their heads up their asses, could change everything. Everyone who is not crazy needs to start insisting on the same simple message:

“We have to live with Corona, it will always be with us. Biannual boosters for the entire population will not solve anything. They will only reduce the effectiveness of vaccines by encouraging antigenic drift. The vaccines are, at best, a solution for the elderly and the vulnerable only. Everyone will get Corona, even the vaccinated, and children need to get it while they are still young and while it poses no risk to them. In this way, SARS-2 will become an unimportant virus in the coming years.”

But will that happen before we suffer through a vaccine dystopia?

This article gave no attention to treatments, but here is one of the many comments that addressed this issue well:

“When do the powers that start focusing on TREATMENTS for those who contract covid, regardless of vaccination status?? No other infection, condition, disease, etc… don’t have treatment options, except for covid… they, the powers that be, go so far as to block treatment options or make them incredibly hard to get.

“It’s past time to make the various treatments readily available… they don’t have to be 100% successful, but we should be given the choice to try them!!”

Vaccine dystopia seen by some esteemed scientists

If the material above has made you depressed, you may not want to keep reading. Some great medical scientists have gone public with very negative views of the future because of mass COVID vaccine use.

Chief among these forecasters of vaccine doom is Dr. Judy Mikovits. She became widely seen as a conscientious whistleblower when she talked about “mass murder” and said that 50 million Americans will die because of the vaccines.

Her medical science credentials are impeccable, including a long stint at the National Cancer Institute. Her views may seem extreme to some people, but they are based on a deep scientific understanding and are consistent with the highly frightening forecasts of other scientists and physicians.

Here are some of her views:

“Most people don’t realize the [COVID] vaccines do not prevent infection. You’re injecting the blueprint of the virus and letting a compromised system try to deal with it. And worse, it doesn’t go in the cells that a natural infection would, that have lock and key receptors, gatekeepers, so that only certain cells can be infected, like the upper respiratory tract for a coronavirus. Now you’re making it in a nanoparticle which means it can go in every cell without that receptor. So, can you imagine the damage of bypassing God’s natural immunity and allowing the blueprint for coronavirus that also has components of HIV in some strains, meaning you can infect your white blood cells. So now you’re going to inject an agent into every cell of the body. I just can’t even imagine a recipe for anything other than what I would consider mass murder on a scale where 50 million people will die in America from the vaccine. The numbers from the XMRV’s (xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus) and the vaccine injuries for the (past) 40 years support that.”

Her warning that these injections can cause death is confirmed by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, an award-winning researcher and former head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene in Germany; he was a professor of virology and microbiology for 30 years in Germany.

In the statement shown below, he warns that by taking these injections, killer lymphocytes already present in our body will cause an auto-immune attack with terrible consequences for our health and even death. He made this statement:

“The big, big danger about this vaccine is you are shooting the gene of the virus into your body. It is going to go through the body and go to entering cells that you don’t know. These cells are going to start making, not the whole virus, but virus protein, and these cells are going to put the waste of that spike protein in front of their cells. And the killer lymphocytes will see the waste, and, you know, anyone who does not understand there is going to be an autoimmune attack because the killer lymphocytes are already there. It is with this that I will say, “Bye bye,” (death) because you don’t realize what you are going to do. You are going to plant the seed of autoimmune reactions.”

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is board certified in emergency medicine and osteopathic manipulative medicine and author of several books on the impact of vaccines. When she was specifically asked about the forecast from Dr. Mikovits, she said:

“If they don’t die, they’re going to be seriously injured. There are some things in life that are worse than death, you know, having to live with chronic inflammatory drug induced hepatitis, you know, having chronic seizure disorders, having debilitating autoimmune diseases. Some people are so sick it would be merciful if they died.”

Add to these views the warnings from Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer with a Ph.D. in respiratory pharmacology, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of the Public Health Department in Germany and a doctor of pneumology. They sent an urgent petition to the European Union demanding a halt to COVID-19 vaccine studies due to safety concerns.

They specifically identified the following serious side effects:

  • Infertility
  • Allergic, potentially fatal reactions due to polyethylene glycol (PEG) which is contained in the vaccine.
  • Exaggerated immune reactions, especially when the vaccine recipient is confronted (later in life) with the real “wild” virus. They report that these exaggerated immune reactions to corona vaccines have long been known from experiments with cats. 100% of the vaccinated cats died after catching the wild virus.

Here are a few more examples of dire predictions about the COVID vaccines:

Dr. Luc Montagnier, a French virologist and recipient of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is worth listening to. He has a doctorate in medicine and has received more than 20 major awards. Montagnier refers to the mass vaccine program as an “unacceptable mistake” and is a “scientific error as well as a medical error.” His assertion is that “The history books will show that… it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.”

In other words: “There are antibodies, created by the vaccine,” forcing the virus to “find another solution” or die. This is where the variants are created. It is the variants that “are a production and result from the vaccination.” He is talking about the mutation and strengthening of the virus from a phenomenon known as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

ADE is a mechanism that increases the ability of a virus to enter cells and cause a worsening of the disease. His bottom line: “Faced with an unpredictable future, it is better to abstain.” But most people will find it extremely difficult to resist all the coercion and vaccine mandates.

As to the much talked about and hope for herd immunity, he has said: “the vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca do not prevent the transmission of the virus person-to-person and the vaccinated are just as transmissive as the unvaccinated. Therefore, the hope of a ‘collective immunity’ by an increase in the number of vaccinated is totally futile.”

Dr. Vanden Bossche has considerable credentials that make his views worth consideration. He has a Ph.D. in Virology from the University of Hohenheim, Germany, and has held faculty appointments at universities in Belgium and Germany. He was at the German Center for Infection Research in Cologne as Head of the Vaccine Development Office.

He has said: “Given the huge amount of immune escape that will be provoked by mass vaccination campaigns and flanking containment measures, it is difficult to imagine how human interventions would not cause the COVID-19 pandemic to turn into an incredible disaster for global and individual health.”

He talks about selective viral ‘immune escape’ where viruses continue to be shed from those who are infected [both vaccinated and nonvaccinated] because neutralizing antibodies fail to prevent replication and elimination of the virus.

A frightening forecast by Bossche is that the worst of the pandemic is still to come. Hard to believe considering all the bad news propaganda about cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. But he thinks we are now experiencing the calm before the ultimate storm. Imagine a new wave of infection far worse than anything we’ve seen so far is how Bossche thinks. How does this happen?

There will be more mutants or variants to which the adaptive immune system from vaccine shots provides little resistance. At the same time, there will be decreased innate or natural immune effectiveness. Unless people take a number of steps to boost their natural immunity.

Here is his big picture view: “There is only one single thing at stake right now and that is the survival of our human race, frankly speaking.” This too is a very strong view. The “mass vaccination program is… unable to generate herd immunity.” If true, there is little hope of seeing the COVID pandemic ending.

In a public comment to the CDC on April 23, 2021, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called on CDC to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.

She holds a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas, and has over 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology. “I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” she said.

Also noted was that “Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin [a protein], and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes.” Yet another issue was this: “there is strong evidence for immune escape, and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more Covid-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention.

That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”

Dr. Theresa Deisher warned about the dangers of mRNA permanently re-writing our genetic code by making changes to our DNA. She graduated with honors and distinction from Stanford University and obtained her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from the Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Stanford University. “The vaccines that are messenger RNA (mRNA), what they do is they act like a virus and they hijack the cell’s machinery to turn that mRNA into the protein. Now, messenger RNA can also be what’s called reverse transcribed into DNA. Okay, an RNA virus uses a reverse transcriptase in our cells to make itself into DNA and permanently insert into the genome. Viruses can do that. There is a possibility that the messenger RNA could be made into DNA and be permanently inserted. It doesn’t have all of the efficient components of a virus but the spontaneous possibility is there. In a gene therapy trial, the experts said the danger is 10 to the minus 13 (which is one in a trillion). Four of nine boys (participating in the trial) had DNA insertions and developed leukemia. Four of nine is a lot different from one in a trillion.”

Dr. Johan Denis, a medical doctor and homeopath from Belgium, warns, “This vaccine is just not proven safe. It has been developed too quickly. We have no idea what the long-term effects will be. It needs much more investigation. There is no hurry or emergency. It might possibly change your DNA. This is irreversible and irreparable for all future generations.”

report in May by 57 top scientists and physicians sent a clear message about COVID vaccines. “The recently identified role of SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein Spike for inducing endothelial damage characteristic of COVID-19, even in absence of infection, is extremely relevant given that most of the authorized vaccines induce the production of Spike glycoprotein in the recipients.

Given the high rate of occurrence of adverse effects, and the wide range of types of adverse effects that have been reported to date, as well as the potential for vaccine-driven disease enhancement, Th2-immunopathology, autoimmunity, and immune evasion, there is a need for a better understanding of the benefits and risks of mass vaccination, particularly in the groups that were excluded in the clinical trials.”

“Despite calls for caution, the risks of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have been minimized or ignored by health organizations and government authorities.”
“In the context of these concerns, we propose halting mass-vaccination and opening an urgent pluralistic, critical, and scientifically-based dialogue on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among scientists, medical doctors, international health agencies, regulatory authorities, governments, and vaccine developers.”

Conclusions

Ponder this for a while: Even though we probably have entered vaccine dystopia can we still save humanity and our society?

So many people have already been jabbed and for those who have died and been stricken with various health problems, it is too late. But many millions have not yet been jabbed. And now many millions must accept or reject booster shots.

Many have strong natural immunity from prior COVID infection that the weight of scientific evidence says is better than vaccine immunity. For them, vaccine shots are unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

All COVID vaccine decisions are difficult. How informed are people really? Is consent just a mindless formality? Sign and get jabbed. Then what?

But the more you know about vaccine data and science, the more likely you will be motivated to seek alternatives to the vaccines. It will be hard work to regain medical freedom. The pro-vaccine army that permeates all big media will keep saying that vaccines are needed to save lives.

They conveniently ignore all the deaths and adverse health impacts. The unknown is whether these will increase enough to show the folly of their argument. Will the vaccine doomsayers be proven correct?

If the forces of evil pushing medical tyranny prevail, then a very dark vaccine dystopia probably awaits us.

About the author: Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and America’s Frontline Doctors.

September 13, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 2 Comments

The tragedy of Australia

By Paul Collits | TCW Defending Freedom | September 10, 2021

The writer is in Australia

THE British historian Guy de la Bédoyère claims that ‘Australia is falling apart’. Off Guardian suggests that we are ‘going full fascist’. Daily reports in France, Russia and everywhere in between and beyond, hover between pity, amusement and disbelief. How did this happen – in Australia? The overseas storytelling can barely keep up with the never-ending stream of new announcements designed to grind us into the ground.  But on and on it goes.

There is, at last, a book-length account of Australia’s eighteen months of madness that will either warm the hearts of Covid realists, remind us of all the Covid policy absurdities or perhaps simply provide yet more chilling evidence of the sinister forces at work that are changing us irrevocably.

Unfolding Catastrophe: Australia (Sense of Place Publishing, 2021), by John Stapleton, restores – though perhaps only a little – the faith we ought to have in the journalist class, so utterly diminished by their sitting out the crushing of our lives (at best) and their active collaborating in the spread of Covid propaganda (at worst).

Recognising early on the biggest story of all of our lives, Stapleton set out to record in graphic detail and with authenticity the developing catastrophe, from the toilet paper crisis at the start to the emerging apartheid regime for those who refuse the State Injectible.

Stapleton records with palpable astonishment the now familiar litany of harms that have been done, not only to the body politic, but to our core values, indeed, to our very sense of our country. Our place. They include the impositions of lockdowns that do not work but cause harm beyond telling; the ‘wildly inaccurate’ modelling that predicted catastrophe and instead merely delivered fame and riches for those involved; the succession of non-medical interventions with no basis in science and without popular understanding that this is the case; the low information voter; the punitive policing; the absence of real leadership in the crisis; the incoherent messaging from the top; the disaster that is ‘National Cabinet’; magic money tree economics; the relentless announcables; the Covid cronyism; the entrenching of power by the political class.

This all amounts to ‘a radical social experiment going against decades of epidemiological wisdom’.  It has been, Stapleton suggests, ‘demonic’. Not just stupid and deranged, but evil. It has caused, as we now see in all our empty churches, ‘spiritual damage’. Earthly lives gone, and souls lost. A sad tale of deceit and compliance, of induced fear, isolation, economic deprivation, destroyed friendships and civil fracture. A creepy but unmistakable feel of the Biblical End Times, the streets empty. Astonishing submissiveness. A story of manufactured narratives, of a ‘disinformation feedback loop’ as Stapleton reports, his previous faith in the scepticism of his countrymen utterly destroyed. Societal dysfunction. Many ‘conspiracy theories’ across the internet have proved to be spot on.

The book draws upon a broad range of expert observers, who include journalists of every colour and distinguished academics such as the Spectator’s Ramesh Thakur, a breath of fresh air amid the fetid atmosphere of secular decline. Ramesh’s call on the Covid response, as reported by Stapleton: ‘The greatest mistake in history’. World War One is right up there, but this call is no exaggeration.

Rational argument simply does not work with our rulers. Copious evidence relating to the policy disasters of the pandemic never breaches the walls of the bubble. As Stapleton said in an interview with Sydney Criminal Lawyers, ‘it all fell on deaf ears’.

Is the tide of opinion turning against the ever-increasing crush of medical technocracy? Stapleton has cautious optimism. Speaking up for those of us who, mercifully, live outside the cities, he says: ‘But there are no cases or virtually no cases in this area. Nobody knows anybody who has died.’ Pennies may, at last, be dropping. Crisis? What crisis? It is a case-demic of a very mild strain of the initial virus, without the remotest hospitalisation crisis

Chillingly, as Stapleton says, ‘All of this has been done in secret, and in our name.’ The parliaments rarely sit. Public Health Orders trump democratic processes. Reasons are never given for policy actions beyond formulaic tosh. We never signed up for this.

Steve Waterson, one of the few consistently sane voices in the corporate media, describes the book as a ‘devastating indictment of Australia’s response to the Covid pandemic’. I am glad Waterson didn’t confine himself to ‘Australian governments’, for we are, all of us, complicit in this truly diabolical attack on everything we have all lived for. Stapleton uses the term ‘manipulated’ and ‘held hostage’ to describe our corporate media’s role in the fiasco.

Stapleton, alone, it seems, among our publishers and authors, has taken a stand – for freedom, common sense, perspective and Aussie values. His is a stand for life itself. His work shames his colleagues who have chosen to sit quietly in the corner these past eighteen months, or worse, to join in the chanting for the Covid Fascist State. This book is the methodical work of a brave truth-teller who is willing to call a spade a bloody shovel, in the best tradition of fair-dinkum journalism.

As the first draft of history, this magnificent book should be marked ‘essential reading’. Normally one might add here: ‘Send a copy to your member of parliament’. Alas, I fear, in this case, such a course of action would be pointless. Our rulers are in and settled, on a good wicket, and they intend to bat on.

A ‘signal collapse and rearrangement of society’? Who on earth could disagree?

September 12, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Review: “Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored”

Review by Edward Curtin | September 10, 2021

It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of this book. It is a tour de force that blows away twenty years of U.S. government lies and obfuscations about the mass murders of September 11, 2001, the foundational event of recent times that claimed thousands of victims whose relatives still cry out for truth and justice.

Reading Unanswered Questions will roil you to the depths of your soul and illuminate your mind as author Ray McGinnis presents fact after fact backed up by almost one thousand endnotes and twelve years of meticulous research. There is nothing speculative about this book. It is not a “conspiracy theory.”

McGinnis ingeniously and brilliantly documents those murders through the eyes of victims’ relatives and their decades-long, agonizing efforts to seek honest answers from the U.S. government. To have their simple and obvious questions answered. To know the truth about why their loved ones died and who killed them.

Their struggles have been met with cruel indifference from four presidents (Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden), three New York City mayors (Giuliani, Bloomberg, and de Blasio), the 9/11 Commission, and so many others in positions of authority who have turned deaf ears to their cris de coeur.  The corporate mass media have rubbed salt in their wounds as they have stage-managed the lies and coverups. And controlled opposition operatives have played slick games to direct attention away from the heart of the matter.

The families’ search for answers to their questions have been either ignored or answered with lies and dissimulation piled upon dissimulation to protect the guilty. McGinnis is their champion. He insists on answers.

He powerfully unfurls layer upon layer of facts and the government’s fictions in a timeline that brings us to the twentieth anniversary of these atrocities. While reading it, one cannot help but think of the thousands of innocent victims of that terrible day and their suffering families, and the millions of innocent victims throughout the world who have been murdered by the U.S. government in the name of 9/11. The “war on terror” has been waged by a government that continues to refuse to tell the truth about who the “terrorists” were on September 11, 2001.

By refusing to answer the families’ questions and thereby hypothetically claiming the Fifth Amendment for fear of incriminating themselves, government officials have ironically incriminated themselves.

For McGinnis is like a prosecuting attorney who works not for the state but for the people.  He forces the issue by asking the questions his clients want answered. Like them, he is persistent and requests answers to a litany of interrogations that are met with silence. The government’s stonewalling is deafening, and readers – who are the jury – are left to decide the case partially based on those non-answers, often justified under the sham of “national security” or just plain arrogance.  When answers are forthcoming, they are incomplete and disingenuous.

Seventy per cent of the questions the Family Steering Committee asked the 9/11 Commission were left unanswered in The 9/11 Commission Report. Those that were answered raised more questions than they answered.

But the reason that this book is so powerful is because McGinnis answers the questions that the government does not. And so his title – Unanswered Questions – is ironically false while also being true.

This should in no way put off those who still cling to the official story. For McGinnis is exceedingly fair in assessing and presenting the facts and readily admits when there are disagreements.

While focusing on a core group of bereaved families called The Family Steering Committee who are insistent on answers, a group that includes four New Jersey widows known as “The Jersey Girls” whose husbands died in the Twin Towers, he includes many others and does not shy away from saying when they are at odds. The only way a fair-minded person can assess the book is to read it. And if you don’t read it and you have bought the government’s official fabrications or are still sitting on the fence, you are in flight from truth.  This book demands attention.

As far as I know, while there have been many excellent books critiquing the government’s account of 9/11, led by about a dozen extraordinary works by David Ray Griffin, and many books supporting the government’s explanation led by The 9/11 Commission ReportUnanswered Questions is the first to approach the subject from the perspective of the questions asked by the relatives of the victims.

For many people, the murders of that day are abstract, although they naturally stir the human emotions of pity, fear, and terror. But from a distance, for they are now fading into history and are not personal. For some, there may have been a catharsis with The 9/11 Commission Report which they no doubt never read although it was said to be a “best-seller.” That would be fake catharsis, for such fiction fails to tell the truth since it was written by people blind in mind and ears as well as in their eyes. But then again, who reads Sophocles or Aeschylus any longer? Better to read The New York TimesSlate magazine, TimeThe New RepublicThe Nation, etc., all of which effusively praised the 9/11 Commission Report when it was released. As McGinnis reports, “The New York Times called the Report ‘an uncommonly lucid, even riveting narrative’ and an ‘improbable literary triumph.’” This is simply propaganda.

But let us take a look inside Unanswered Questions, a genuine non-fiction book motivated by a deep compassion for the victims and a scholar’s dedication to the truth. It is divided into four parts, each containing multiple chapters.

“Part One: From Grief to Advocacy” is the briefest and introduces the reader to firefighters, first responders, and family members who lost loved ones in the calamity. We learn how their grief turned to advocacy when they formed many groups to channel their energies. We learn how President Bush and his minions (or was Bush the minion and others like Cheney in charge?) opposed establishing a special commission to probe into the events of September Eleventh and how when his opposition was overcome he had the audacity to try to name Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 Commission and how this was stopped. Finally, McGinnis tells us how the families’ questions were greatly expanded after discovering Paul Thompson’s extraordinary Internet timeline with its vast numbers of links to news reports that was later published as The Terror Timeline.

“Part Two: Family Steering Committee Statements to the 9/11 Commission” examines how the 9/11 Commission was a setup from the start, not even close to being an impartial investigation. It began with the naming of Philip Zelikow as the Director. Zelikow had deep ties to the Bush administration and its neocons. He had been a member of Bush’s transition team. Even “Richard Clarke, chairman of the ‘Counterterrorism Security Group,’ said ‘the fix is in’” when Zelikow was appointed. Zelikow completely controlled the investigation and the final report despite many conflicts of interest. He essentially wrote the report before the hearings commenced. He had authored a book with Condoleezza Rice and was an advocate for preemptive war that was used to attack Iraq in early 2003, etc. His appointment was a sick joke, and the Family Steering Committee called for his immediate resignation but was rebuffed just as quickly by Chairman Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. As a result, the final report ended being a fictional account authored by Zelikow (who has now been named to head a Covid-19 commission).

This section also covers the lies told by Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he testified. Three hundred and forty-three FDNY members were killed that day, heroes who didn’t have to die. Giuliani’s testimony so outraged the families of first responders that their fury was uncontained. McGinnis tells us:

They held up signs that read ‘lies’ and ‘liar.’ Family Steering Committee member Sally Regenhard held up a sign that read ‘FICTION.’ She hollered, ‘My son [Christian Regenhard, a probationary firefighter] was not told to get out! He would’ve gotten out! My son was murdered, murdered because of your incompetence and radios that didn’t work!

McGinnis captures the increasing anger felt by family members throughout this section as the final report was rammed through despite their protests.

“Part Three: The Family Steering Committee’s Unanswered Questions” is the heart of the book. It contains eleven chapters devoted to questions addressed to NORAD, the FAA, the CIA/SEC/FBI, Mayor Giuliani, President Bush, the Port Authority/WTC/City of New York, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld but never answered. Over a thousand questions were posed to the 9/11 Commission to aid the investigation. McGinnis writes:

The questions were intended to direct the focus of the inquiry, and ask those most directly involved what led to the failures that day. They understood that it would not be the FSC members themselves asking the questions. Instead, they would be posed to witnesses by 9/11 commissioners in public hearings, or asked by Commission staff behind closed-door proceedings.

Some of these questions were directed at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). One question the FSC asked the 9/11 Commission was: ‘Why weren’t NORAD jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification?’

NORAD had an extremely successful history of intercepting errant aircraft, and a part of their mission was “surveillance and control of the [domestic] territorial airspace “ in the U.S. and Canada. Nevertheless, on September 11, 2001 none of the hijacked aircraft were intercepted even though they were allegedly being flown by inexperienced and incompetent hijackers who, according to experts, could never fly such massive commercial airliners into the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon. Government witnesses either lied about the systemic failures to intercept the planes, omitted important details, or gave contradictory stories. Of course, they were then promoted. And although there was an unprecedented number of war games being “coincidentally” held on September 11, none of the 9/11 Commissioners asked any witnesses about them.

It was clear that all the questions about the failure to intercept the planes would not be answered, but McGinnis makes it obvious that their non-answers were indeed answers by omission, for in this section and all the others, he makes sure the questions are indeed answered and the cumulative effect is devastating. He does this not simply by expressing his own opinions but by quoting others and always giving sources.

In a similar vein, the FSC wished to know from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) why these hijacked planes were able to evade all of the highly sophisticated radar?  McGinnis says, “The 9/11 Commission concluded that NORAD had failed to do its job on September Eleventh; NORAD’s decisions impaired the FAA radar operator’s conduct.” Of course the radar questions were linked to the war games issue and since the war games questions were never asked, these massive failures were explained away in gobbledygook worthy of the Three Stooges.

Mindy Kleinberg, a FSC member whose husband Alan died in the North Tower, told the Commission that its theory of luck was bullshit, although she phrased it more diplomatically:

With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11, simply on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once; they were lucky over and over again… Is it luck that aberrant stock trades were not monitored? Is it luck when 15 visas were awarded on incomplete forms? Is it luck when Airline Security screenings allow hijackers to board planes with box cutters and pepper spray? Is it luck when emergency FAA and NORAD protocols are not followed? Is it luck when a national emergency is not reported to top government officials on a timely basis? To me luck is something that happens once. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck.

Comically, The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that, as McGinnis notes, “The reason for the attacks was due simply to a [U.S. government] failure of imagination.”

In regard to foreknowledge of the attacks, the families asked the CIA, the SEC, and the FBI for the names of the individuals and financial institutions who placed “put” orders on American and United Airlines in the three weeks prior to 9/11.

This involved the number three man at the CIA, CIA Executive Director Alvin “Buzzy” Krongard, former Vice Chairman of the board at Bankers Trust that had been acquired by Deutsche Bank through which many of these suspect stock trades passed. This insider trading that anticipated the 9/11 attacks was connected to a security firm named Stratesec that provided security to Dulles Airport, the World Trade Center, and United Airlines, and to Wirt Walker III, a business partner of the president’s brother, Marvin Bush. Walker III was a board member of the Carlyle Group that was in turn connected to the bin Laden and Bush families.

Despite these and other highly suspect connections, the “9/11 Commission wasn’t interested in exploring leads about possible foreknowledge of the attacks.” Nor were they interested in the strange matter of Larry Silverstein, who had already owned World Trade Center Building 7, but who obtained a 99-year lease on the Twin Towers two months before the attack and who insisted that insurance cover a terrorist attack for $3.5. billion dollars. Silverstein was later awarded $4.55 billion when it was determined that there had been two suicide attacks.

Silverstein later claimed that there was agreement to “pull” (a controlled demolition term) Building 7, which happened at 5:20 PM that day despite never having been hit by a plane. Questions about the collapse of Building 7 were of course never answered, but the videos of its collapse are available for all to see with their own eyes. An excellent film about Building 7, Seven by Dylan Avery, should be seen by all. Seeing is believing, and what any objective observer can only conclude is that the building was taken down by controlled demolition, which the government denies.

Which brings us to other key questions that the FSC asked, McGinnis explores, and that went unanswered: Why did President Bush enter a Sarasota, Florida elementary classroom, stay there as the attacks unfolded, and not immediately return to Washington, D.C.? Why did he enter that classroom at 9:03 AM and remain there for fifteen minutes when it was clear the U.S. was under a terrorist attack? Why was he, unlike Dick Cheney, not immediately taken out of the building by the Secret Service but was allowed to sit and read to children and not depart the building until 9:34 A.M.?

“The vice president was reported by President Bush’s personal secretary as being ‘seized by arms, legs, and his belt and physically’ carried out of his office at 9:03 A.M. Cheney was taken to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center below the White House, where Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta saw him prior to 9:25 A.M.” Yet Bush stayed to read a book when colleagues of the Secret Service agents protecting him had already been evacuated from the largest Secret Service Field Office in WTC 7.

“However,” writes McGinnis, “on December 4, 2001, President Bush made the following statement at a Town Hall meeting about the moment – 9:01 a.m. – that he said he learned about the attack. ‘And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – the television was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, “That’s one terrible pilot.” And I said, “It must have been a horrible accident.” But I was whisked off there – I didn’t have much time to think about it.’”

You can’t make this stuff up, yet it’s offered to the public and the victims’ families as acceptable. Bush was informed that a second plane had hit the South Tower by Andrew Card who came into the classroom and whispered in his ear. But three months later he claims he saw on television the first plane hit the North Tower when no one could have seen it since video of the first plane hitting the building at 8:46 A.M. was not available until much later.

These ridiculous discrepancies and other questions the FSC wished the 9/11 Commission to ask Bush under oath in sworn public testimony went unasked and unanswered.  Instead, as McGinnis writes:

But, the meeting with Bush and Cheney took place in secret on April 29, 2004. It was not held under oath. No transcript was made available of their conversation with the commissioners. Nothing was learned about why the president remained at an elementary school during the attacks. Nothing was learned about what the president knew regarding foreign intelligence agencies forewarning the U.S. Nothing was learned about why the president had authorized America to prepare for war against Afghanistan in the days and weeks prior to the attacks of September 11.

Nor was anything learned about why Pentagon brass suddenly cancelled flights scheduled for September 11.  Nothing about who warned them and why.

Essentially all the key questions the families asked were not answered. But McGinnis answers them, including those addressed to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Giuliani, the CIA, and the Port Authority/WTC/City of New York. By using the documented records against them, he does the job the 9/11 Commission refused to do. He unravels the lies, circumlocutions, and straightforward propaganda used to hide the truth, including the following:

  • Cheney’s deceptions about when he got to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center and what he was doing there and his orders to his young assistant about the hijacked plane headed toward the capitol.
  • Rumsfeld with his lies about not knowing anything about the World Trade Center attacks until fifteen minutes before the Pentagon was hit and why the Pentagon was not defended.
  • Giuliani and the obvious controlled demolition of Building 7 at 5:20 P.M. and the lies about the faulty telephones the firefighters carried.

Since this is not meant to be a book about a book but a book review, I will stop there. I would be remiss, however, if I failed to mention “Chapter 22: The Missing Accounts: FDNY.”

It is part of Part Four: Acceptance And Dissent that leads to McGinnis’s conclusion. Whatever one’s position on the events of September 11, it is generally accepted that firefighters and first responders are objective and brave in the extreme. Of the emergency workers who responded to the call to help save the people in the Twin Towers, the vast majority who lost their lives in attempting to save their fellow human beings were firefighters – 343 of them perished that day. They were doing their duty. So their surviving colleagues’ testimonies are priceless and beyond dispute. They had absolutely no reasons to lie. McGinnis tells us:

On September 11, 2001, Thomas Von Essen, the fire commissioner of New York City, ordered that oral histories be gathered from first responders, firefighters, and medical workers. He wanted to preserve the accounts of what they experienced at the World Trade Center. In the weeks and months following 9/11, 503 oral histories were taken. However, they were not released to the public. The 2002 mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, refused.

The Family Steering Committee asked the 9/11 Commission why, but the Commission refused to answer their question. After a law suit, the oral histories that run to 12,000 pages were released. They contain copious accounts of explosions going off in the Towers before the Towers collapsed.

FDNY firefighter John Coyne, who was in the South Tower, recalls how he had called his father and said:

I finally got through to my father and said ‘I’m alive. I just wanted to tell you, go to church, I’m alive. I just so narrowly escaped this thing.’ He said, ‘Where were you? You were there?’ I said, ‘Yeh, I was right there when it blew up.’ He said, ‘You were there when the planes hit?’ I said, ‘No, I was there when it exploded, the building exploded.’ He said, ‘You mean when it fell down?’ I said, ‘No, when it exploded.’ … I totally thought it had been blown up. That’s just the perspective of looking at it, it seemed to have exploded out.

Captain Karin DeShore, who was standing outside, said she saw a sequence of orange and red flashes coming from the North Tower:

Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash…kept popping all around the building and that building started to explode … These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going up and down and the all around the building.

Keith Murphy: “There was tremendous damage in the lobby… like something had exploded out… a distant boom sounded like three explosions.”

Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory: “I saw low-level flashes… [at] the lower level of the building. You know when they demolish a building?”

Explosions were being reported everywhere and by reporters as well. Researchers Graeme MacQueen and Ted Walter viewed 70 hours of television coverage and found that most reporters were saying the Towers came down as a result of explosions and demolition. Take a look here.

There were explosions reported in the sub-basements before the planes hit. William Rodriguez, who was in the sub-basement of the North Tower and heard and felt very loud multiple explosions, told this to 9/11 Commission staff and this never appeared in The 9/11 Commission Report.

The evidence for explosives planted in the Towers and Building 7 is overwhelming but was completely discounted by the 9/11 Commission and the mass media complicit in its coverup. In fact, the demolition of Building 7 at 5:20 P.M was not worthy of a mention in the best-selling report. It should be obvious to any objective thinker that if these building were wired for explosives and were brought down via controlled demolition, then this could not have been done by Osama bin Laden or his followers but only by insiders who were granted secret access to these ultra-high security buildings.

Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby died in the North Tower, has persevered for twenty years to expose the lies surrounding September 11. McGinnis reports on his 2006 interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation host Evan Solomon:

I believe 100% that the US orchestrated 9/11 with the help of other agencies around the world… There’s people within the US that knew it happened, that planned this to happen.

To Solomon’s question “You think your son was therefore murdered by Americans?” McIlvaine replied, “absolutely.”

He is joined by many others, including Matt Campbell, a British citizen and family member, whose brother Geoff Campbell died on the 106th floor of the North Tower. Matt Campbell and his family have recently demanded a new inquest based on a 3,000 page scientifically-backed dossier claiming the buildings were blown up from within.

After reading Unanswered Questions, you very well might believe it too.

Learning about the determination of such stalwart souls as McIlvaine, Campbell, the FSC, and so many others to extract truth and justice from a recalcitrant and guilty government is inspirational. They will never give up. Nor should we.

There is no doubt that this extraordinary book will answer many questions you may or may not have had about the mass murders of September 11, 2001.

So don’t turn away.

It will break your heart but restore your faith in what a writer dedicated to the truth can do for those family members who have so long sought the bread of truth and were handed stones of silence.

In their ongoing grief, Ray McGinnis has handed them the gift of a bitter solace. He has answered them.

He has also given the public an opportunity to see the truth and demand an independent investigation forthwith.

September 11, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

They can’t hide the costs of Net Zero forever

By Patrick Benham-Crosswell | TCW Defending Freedom | September 6, 2021

THE run-up to the COP26 climate change jamboree in Glasgow later this year is probably not going as well as the government would like.  Despite being committed to Net Zero by Mrs May’s undebated and uncosted statutory instrument, the size of the likely costs can’t be hidden for ever and the guardian of the magic money tree, Chancellor Rishi Sunak, is fretting.

I have just produced a short book on Net Zero (brazen plug, you can buy it here) and, having spent several months trawling through the government’s own numbers, have reached the conclusions that the costs are huge (and possibly more than that). Replacing fossil fuels means we have to produce our energy from nuclear and renewables. At the moment they provide just about 10 per cent of our energy requirements. Making up the shortfall needs 30 to 50 Sizewell Cs, or 300 to 500 Small Modular Reactors, or 17,000 to 28,000 new offshore wind turbines. It will also need the electricity distribution grid to more or less quadruple in size. (The uncertainty primarily comes from whether Mr Gove can convert 25million homes to heat pumps, or whether we adopt hydrogen).

The cost of the generation alone comes out at something like £1trillion. Add to that car chargers, heat pumps, hydrogen electrolysers and suchlike and the costs could double. Or more.

The cost of energy will also rise. A report from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in 2016 (when Mrs May imposed Net Zero) forecast that the price of electricity would increase by at least 50 per cent. Which means that the UK is likely to be operating on a higher cost base than those economies which have not yet followed our lead and declared a net zero target. That’s most of the world – only Bhutan, Suriname, Uruguay, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Austria and Germany have followed Mrs May’s quixotic charge. I’m not sure Germany is serious – 25 per cent of its power comes from coal and it is phasing out nuclear power.

Hilariously (or tragically) the government is threatening to crack down on ‘greenwashing’, by which they mean the habit of suppliers claiming that buying their product saves the planet. Yet our political leaders maintain that it will all be fine, that Net Zero is achievable and all we need to do is plant some trees. If they looked at their own data they would know that this is not the case.

To cite one example, every now and then one of them will trumpet about carbon capture, use and storage. Capturing CO2 is tricky and expensive. The world CO2 demand is some 230million tons per year (mostly for the oil and food industries). That’s less than half of the UK’s current CO2 emissions. There is no chance of widescale use of COcaptured in the UK.

Of course there is already ample legislation on what may or may not be said in advertisements. New legislation is unnecessary.

As we have seen during the pandemic, this government has a habit of deploying misleading graphs and generally being economical with the truth. If they really wanted to improve the flow of information to the public they would apply the current law to their own presentations.

Hell will freeze over before that happens.

September 6, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Nuclear Power | | Leave a comment

The optimal diet for longevity and weight loss?

By Sebastian Rushworth, M.D. | August 29, 2021

It started with an experiment on locusts in 1991. David Raubenheimer and Stephen Simpson, two zoologists who were at the time doing research at Oxford University, wanted to know what would happen to locusts if they varied the relative proportions of protein and carbohydrate in their diets. They therefore conducted an experiment in which they fed locusts pellets containing varying proportions of protein and carbohydrate, and the results astounded them so much that they ended up determining the course of their research over the next thirty years, which they’ve chronicled in their book, Eat like the animals.

What Raubenheimer and Simpson found was that the locusts were not eating until they’d satisfied their overall need for calories. Rather they ate until they’d satisfied their need for protein, so that overall, all the locusts were consuming the same total amount of protein. This meant that the locusts on the high protein diet were consuming much less food overall than the locusts on the low protein diet. Consequently, the locusts on the high protein diet became extremely lean, while the locusts on the low protein diet became fat (which they describe in their book as equivalent to an overweight knight squeezing in to a suit of armour that is a few sizes too small).

This led Raubenheimer and Simpson to conclude that protein is the dominant macronutrient in terms of determining how much we eat – At least if we’re locusts. They wanted to see if the same pattern would be seen in other species. They started off with flies, and the results were similar, which was encouraging. But flies and locusts are relatively closely related, at least in the sense that they’re both insects. What Raubenheimer and Simpson really wanted to know was whether they’d stumbled on a general dietary principle, that could be applied to all animals.

For reasons of practicality, they next chose mice. Unlike locusts and flies, which subsist pretty much entirely on protein and carbs, mice also eat fat, so in order to get a full understanding of how macronutrients impact body composition, this variable also needed to be part of the experiment. Additionally, Raubenheimer and Simpson wanted to increase the scope of their research, to look not just at the effect of various macronutrient combinations on body composition, but also on longevity. They were also curious to see what effect differing levels of dietary fibre would have on the mice.

The experiment took five years to carry out. 856 mice were sorted in to 25 different groups, that were fed identical pellets but with varying compositions of protein, fat, carbs, and fibre. They were followed from birth to death. In terms of body composition, the results were largely as expected. The mice fed a high protein diet all became lean and muscular. When it came to the mice fed a high carb diet, however, there was more variation. Those on a high carb diet that was low in fibre grew fat, while those on a high carb diet that was high in fibre remained slim.

The fact that fibre mattered so much to the body composition of the mice on a high carb diet is interesting. It provides a reasonable explanation for why people in traditional agrarian societies usually aren’t fat, even though their diets are very high in carbohydrates, and for why the current obesity epidemic coincided with a massive increase in intake of processed foods that were rich in carbs but lacking in fibre. It also provides an explanation for why people are able to lose weight both on a paleo/carnivore/keto diet that is low in carbs, and on a vegan diet that is high in carbs but also high in fibre. Fibre appears to provide a kind of “get out of jail free” card that lets you consume lots of carbs without becoming fat.

What about fat? Fat was found to be neutral in terms of it’s effect on how much the mice ate. In other words, fat intake didn’t have any limiting effect on appetite, so the mice on a high fat low protein diet grew fat, just like the mice on a high carb low protein diet that was low in fibre. If this result were to apply also to humans (which is, of course, not necessarily the case), it would suggest that LCHF/keto diets don’t work because people are replacing carbs with fat, but rather because they’re replacing carbs with protein.

Ok, so we know how the various macronutrient combinations affected body composition. What about the effect on life span? Here, the results as presented in Eat like the animals surprised me. Alot. The longest lived mice, according to Raubenheimer and Simpson, were the ones following a high carb low protein diet. Whether they ate a high or low fibre diet didn’t seem to matter. So the fat high carb mice were actually living longer than the lean, muscular high protein mice!

Baffled by these results, I decided to go and take a look at the data, to confirm that they weren’t just trying to pull a fast one, as nutrition researchers so often do when presenting their research. Hidden away in the supplement to the published study, is this table:

Two things immediately jump out at me. The first is that the group with the longest median lifespan was on a 42% protein diet. Hardly low protein!

If instead of looking at the median lifespan, we look at the maximum, we get a different picture. We see that the extremely low protein mice did best. But their median lifespans were far more average. The authors have obviously based the claims in their book, and in their published research article, on the maximum lifespan, rather than the median. That is something I find very odd.

Personally, I assume I’m going to live an average amount of time for people like me, following my type of lifestyle. I don’t assume I’m going to be the outlier who lives to 120! The median provides a much better picture of the effect of a diet on a group than the maximum lifespan seen in a few individuals.

Apart from that, they’ve chosen an odd definition of maximum life span. They’ve defined it as the top 10% with the longest life span in each group. Which is suspicious. Why the top 10% rather than just the top individual, which would be the more common way to define “maximum”? And why not the top 20%? Or top 30%? The definition really seems to have been chosen specifically because it gave the desired result, which is what is usually referred to as “torturing the data”.

I can only imagine that they chose to base their claims on their odd definition of the maximum rather than on the more appropriate median because the maximum showed a picture more in line with their own biases, possibly shaped by an environmental or animal rights agenda, or by the fact that it’s easier to get research published if it feeds in to the dominant dogmas.

The second thing that jumps out from the table is that the mice eating a high fibre diet (i.e. with a low energy density) lived much shorter lives than the other mice. That is by far the biggest difference, much bigger than any difference induced by varying protein or carb concentrations. Does this mean fibre is deadly and should be avoided it like the plague?

Well, no. The pellets that the mice were fed only contained one fibre, cellulose, which is hardly representative of the full spectrum of fibres that exist in real food. So it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from this about the effects of fibre on longevity. What we can say is that cellulose appears to be toxic to mice.

Next, I took the data from the table and re-tabulated it in a form that would allow for easier analysis of the data, which you can see here:

So what we see is that the low protein mice do appear to live the longest, but the differences between the groups are small and hardly linear. The difference between the 5% protein mice and the 42% protein mice is only 2 weeks, equivalent to about a year and a half if translated to a human lifetime. Since there’s no evidence of a linear relationship between protein intake and life expectancy, it’s hard to say that that result isn’t just caused by chance.

If we move on to carbs, then it again isn’t clear that the high carb diet leads to a longer life. The longest lived group is actually the one consuming a moderate 29% carbs, and again, there is no evidence of a linear relationship. The same is also true for fats.

So overall, the claims the authors make about a high carb low protein diet resulting in the longest life expectancy don’t hold up to close inspection. They’ve tortured the data until they’ve gotten the result they want.

What can we conclude?

If you want to be lean, muscular, and beautiful, then you should eat a high protein diet. If you just want to lose weight and be slim, then you can either go high protein or high fiber, or do a combination of both.

Well, as long as you’re a lab mouse, that is. Whether all of this also applies to humans is harder to say for certain. The results from the experiments mentioned here and others have led Raubenheimer and Simpson to develop the “protein leverage hypothesis” of obesity, which basically states that the modern obesity epidemic is due to the fact that modern diets are lacking in protein and fibre. This has come to be one of three main hypotheses that try to explain the rise in obesity. The other two are the “carbohydrate-insulin model”, which argues that the rise in obesity is due to the high consumption of carbohydrates and their downstream effects on insulin levels and thus body fat storage, and the traditional “calories in vs calories out model”, which argues that the rise of obesity is due to the fact that modern foods taste too good and are too readily available while our lifestyles have become too sedentary. From my perspective, Raubenheimers and Simpson’s hypothesis is the one of the three that fits the known facts the best. Their book, Eat like the animals, is therefore well worth a read, even though the claims they make about diet and longevity are unsupported by the evidence they present.

September 1, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

How to Use Blood Testing to Increase Your Resilience to COVID

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | August 29, 2021

In this interview, Thomas Lewis, Ph.D., and Dr. Michael Carter explain how biomarker panels can help you take control of your health by identifying underlying chronic infections that might be sabotaging your health. Lewis is a microbiologist with a Ph.D. from MIT and certifications from the Harvard School of Public Health and Carter is an integrative physician.

They run a company that performs diagnostic testing to guide patients through a process of diagnosing various ailments. Biomarkers such as D-dimer, fibrinogen, clotting factors and auto antibodies, which are largely ignored by the mainstream, can clue you in on where you lie on a health/disease continuum.

Importantly, poor COVID outcomes are rare unless you have two or more comorbidities, and in the last year, they’ve developed a more refined way of assessing an individual’s COVID-19 risk using a panel of specific markers associated with inflammation and blood clotting.

Their testing helps YOU understand where you are on the health-disease continuum. In their model, you are not either sick or well — you are somewhere on this continuum. Find out where you are and then work to improve your status.

“Really, it’s your chronic health status that helps you figure out where you are in the continuum for COVID risk,” Lewis explains. The same goes for the COVID shot. According to Lewis, whether you got COVID-19 or the vaccine, the risk factors that determine whether you’ll have a serious bout of COVID-19 or experience more serious adverse events from the shot are identical.

The Role of Underlying Infections

Underlying or latent infections can play a significant role not only in chronic disease but also in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., has pointed out the role of retroviruses and coinfections with pathogens such as borellia and babesia in leading to less favorable outcomes in COVID.

Her hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 in and of itself is not the primary cause of COVID-19. She’s convinced there must be a coinfection along with SARS-CoV-2 that suppresses or compromises your immune system in order for symptomatic COVID-19 to occur.

Carter and Lewis have discovered a number of infectious pathogens that are even more prolific than those highlighted by Mikovits, and which appear central in triggering many chronic conditions that then predispose you to more severe COVID-19.

Primary among those are bacteria involved in periodontal disease (periodontitis). You don’t have to have oral issues or root canals to have a high burden of periodontal pathogens. The Lewis/Carter team test for these pathogens using an oral DNA home test kit.

Another is chlamydia pneumoniae, a respiratory pathogen that 60% to 70% of older adults have antibodies against. Chlamydia pneumoniae plays a role in several common age-related conditions, including Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Unfortunately, few are ever tested for the presence of this organism.

According to Lewis and Carter, inflammatory markers and clotting markers such as C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, uric acid, the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, D-dimer, and sedimentation (SED) rate are strongly associated with innate immune response activity and chronic infections, which in turn correlate with COVID-19 severity.

“What’s tricky about these organisms is they don’t always show up from the classic acute perspective of diagnostic,” Lewis says. “If you talk to any infectious disease doctor that’s not functional in nature, they’ll say that the IgG antibody is historic. But I can guarantee you they’re completely wrong.

They’re not looking at things from a chronic, stealth [perspective]. Do we think chickenpox, the herpes zoster virus, is the only organism that can cause problems and then go dormant and reactivate when you’re immune-compromised later in life? No.

Every single one of these organisms has a potential opportunity to go from an acute phase to a chronic phase. Some never even express acute disease. They just hang out in biofilms and will express in the chronic phase later in life, causing disease of “unknown” origin!

It’s called crypticity, which makes it extremely difficult to create, in the minds of doctors and researchers, the association between the disease and the exposure. Sometimes these exposures are congenital. They happened pre-birth. So, that’s really the art.”

So, to clarify the hypothesis presented by Lewis and Carter, the conventional view is that these infections, once they’ve generated an IgG antibody response, no longer pose a threat to your body. But this isn’t the case.

They can indeed lay dormant only to later contribute to chronic diseases that, on the surface, appear to have nothing to do with a pathogenic infection. The book by Paul Ewald titled, “Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease,” written in 2000, explains well this conundrum.

How to Identify Underlying Infections

The clinical approach to identifying whether an underlying infection is at play in a particular disease is to look at antibody levels. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is reflective of long-term protection and also happens to be the most common antibody, found in blood and other body fluids. It protects against both viral and bacterial infections and tends to be elevated when the infection has reached a chronic state.

Immunoglobulin M (IgM) is associated with acute responses to infections and is found primarily in your blood and lymph. It’s the first antibody to be made when your body encounters a new pathogen. Carter explains:

“Everyone has a baseline level of IgG and IgM, especially in the acute phases, but the long-term IgG, once it is above the normal background level, then in many cases, especially in those who are symptomatic with various diseases, there is reactivation of that virus, bacteria, parasite or other pathogen, what have you — any grouping of these organisms that can smolder and cause disease patterns.

The driver is inflammation and tissue destruction. The mechanism is simple. We all have some “wear and tear.” These organisms increase wear and tear so your “repair and recovery” pathways cannot keep up.

We also — even without doing those IgG levels, just on our basic platform of biomarker testing — can see things in the complete blood count where, let’s say our white blood cell count has a ‘normal range’ somewhere between 3.8 and 10.8 depending on the lab. But that’s a very wide normal range.

Really, anything above 6.2, in terms of your white blood cell count, is an indicator that something is brewing. When we start looking deeper at the neutrophils, the lymphocytes, the basophils, the monocytes and eosinophils, when those values are increased or decreased beyond the optimal range, we can tell that there are critters being unruly even though you don’t have fever, chills or a classic increase in white blood cell count.

So, we know that these pathogens are present in everyone. It’s really incumbent upon your own immune system to be vigilant to keep them at bay and stop them from replicating.”

In summary, if you have elevations (or suppressions) in white blood cell markers, then you likely have an infectious process going on in your body. There’s also typically a direct correlation between your antibody level and the risk of disease, so the higher your antibody level, the greater your risk of chronic disease and poor COVID / JAB outcomes.

PCR testing can be useful for identifying a specific pathogen. However, if excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) are used (as has been the rule when testing for SARS-CoV-2), the test becomes useless, as it can find even a single molecule if run at a high-enough CT. So, the CT needs to be below 26 to avoid false positives.

Review of Lewis and Carter’s Research

Before we go further, here’s how Lewis describes their research, and how it can improve your health and medical decisions:

“Carter and I are not researchers. We like to fancy ourselves translators of best clinical research. There’s really great science published, but medicine is a business decision. Less than 1% of the great medical research makes it to clinical practice.

We had the opportunity to evaluate 100 people at a Fortune1000 company. Based on that, we made an assumption that, because of their health status, 42 of them had some sort of an infectious process.

So, we were given license to test IgM, IgG, bacterial [and] viral. Forty-one of 42 were positive using our testing. Now, we’re not looking for everything in the universe. We’re telling the lab what to look for: what we call ‘usual suspects.’ Some of them had IgM and IgG, and some of them just had IgG with a negative IgM for a single or multiple pathogens.

When we treated them over nine months, everyone got better. What was remarkable is IgG levels [indicative of chronic infection] came down. When someone had a negative IgM but a positive IgG and symptoms, and their IgG level came down, they got better too. This proves that IgG is indicative of the presence of a “hidden” but chronically active infection.

So that’s not an extraordinarily scientific evaluation, but it’s completely consistent with the work of folks like Charles Stratton out of Vanderbilt, who’s written about chlamydia pneumoniae and its three different life forms.”

There are many other researchers and clinicians who have come to this conclusion. Lewis and Carter are in the process of publishing a peer-review medical paper that references many other publications explaining how important an IgG antibody test is.

Treating Chronic Versus Acute Infections

Carter and Lewis have developed a pretreatment program, followed by a variety of treatment strategies aimed at chronic infections. As you might expect, the chronic infection treatments involve more aggressive approaches, and will depend on whether the infection is caused by bacteria, viruses or parasites.

The biggest factor for effective treatment is eradicating pathogens hiding in biofilm, which takes time. (We do not address the use of specific remedies in this interview, as each patient must be tested, seeing how there’s such a broad array of potential causal factors.)

As noted by Lewis, even if you use a broad-spectrum anti-infective, such as ozone, you’ll rarely eradicate enough of the chronic phase of these organisms, as they shelter inside biofilms or inside your cells — including your white blood cells. that are very difficult to get into. These pathogens are often referred to as “obligate intracellular pathogens.” The “obligate” part infers that these harmful organisms rob your energy by mimicing to be your mitochondria. He explains:

“For long periods of time, you have to maintain a physiologically anti-infective dose. The other piece of it that we’ve learned, [and which] everybody knows much better now because of COVID-19, is the inflammatory component. There’s no question that the inflammatory response can override, go too far, even in chronic conditions.

There’s a brilliant paper by Australian groups that talk about cytokines, anti-inflammatory treatments and their clinical relevance.

The biggest problem we face is that, if you bang your elbow and your brain at the same time with the same sort of force, your elbow will recover in a couple weeks, but the brain perpetuates inflammation much longer, and sometimes forever. Consider traumatic brain injury as an example. It happened one time a while ago, but your brain stays “inflamed.”

So, every treatment has to consider an infectious [risk], has to consider lifestyle risks, and help you optimize those things. But generally, there has to be a very strong anti-inflammatory component, which … has to be rigorous and continuous. That’s the big challenge …

Dr. Stratton at Vanderbilt has shown that these organisms can live in an elementary body, a reticular body, and a “cryptic” phase. In some of these phases they’re completely refractory [i.e., resistant] to antibiotic treatment …

J. Thomas Grayson, 95 years old, [a doctor of] preventive medicine at University of Washington … showed that … when it comes to organisms like chlamydia pneumoniae, you have to treat for one year. That’s scary for people, so what we do is we do three-month segments and then retest. Obviously, we measure for symptoms, but also the IgG.”

The Role of Vitamin D

A basic intervention that is really important for shoring up your immune system is vitamin D. Vitamin D is really a pro-hormone and hormones regulate physiological processes. I believe vitamin D optimization — making sure your blood level is between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (150 nmol/L and 200 nmol/L) — is one of the easiest, least expensive and most important things you can do to avoid infections of all kinds, including COVID-19.

The activated form of “vitamin” D is produced in your liver when you have an infection and it is strongly antibiotic. Lewis and Carter recently completed a study in which they looked at the vitamin D level compared to neutrophil and lymphocyte ratio. Lewis explains:

“Neutrophils go up with bacteria. Lymphocytes often go down with viral infections, so [your neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio] is sort of a measure of your overall infectious burden.

What we did recently, and we’re putting this into a paper we’ll be publishing, is a study of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio versus blood 25 hydroxy vitamin D levels. We saw a very clear linear relationship between a bad neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio count and low vitamin D, and then just the opposite.”

They’ve also found a similar correlation between chronic infection and free cholesterol (not total cholesterol). This correlation appears particularly strong in those with cancer, who typically have a free cholesterol level of 50 ng/mL and above. An optimal level is thought to be somewhere between 5 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL, with the healthiest of people typically falling between 5 ng/mL and 15 ng/mL.

When free cholesterol is elevated, you’re more prone to tissue destruction, as cholesterol is an important repair molecule. Since your cholesterol level can indicate your tissue repair capability, it is also included in Lewis’ and Carter’s COVID panel.

“Cancer patients are, I think, just the tip of the iceberg in terms of people that have some virulent infectious process that is destroying tissue,” Lewis says. “I’m pretty sure we’re going to see a very strong correlation to your free cholesterol number as part of the portfolio of tests you want to do to investigate what is going on inside your body.”

How Do You Know if an Infection Is Chronic?

One way to determine whether you’re suffering from an acute or chronic infection is to look at the half-life of the factors being measured. Lewis explains:

“If you take a test now and in three months and you see a sustained trend of biomarker elevation, that’s obviously a way to relate it to chronic infection. But in a single test, every biomarker has a half-life. Red blood cell distribution width, because it’s tied to red blood cells, it’ll stick around for four months.

It has a much longer half-life than say C-reactive protein. If you bang your knee, [C-reactive protein] will go way up, then come down with the half-life of one and a half days.

Fibrinogen is seven days. When you understand half-lives, then when you look at a single lab and they’re all elevated to sort of the exact same extent above what we consider our baseline, then we know it’s chronic, or at least with a very educated guess, that it’s in the chronic phase.”

What’s in the Panel?

Speaking to the issue of what the panel Lewis and Carter developed contains, Carter explains:

“A typical panel … is a very concise panel of blood biomarkers. We expand that with the inflammatory markers that really play a role [in chronic infections].

So, if your homocysteine and C-reactive protein are up, these are key inflammatory markers that many people are walking around with that are high and that are really directly causing toxicity to the [blood]vessels, [thereby] leading to coronary artery disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s and a whole host of things. Almost every chronic disease starts in the vessels — more specifically the capillaries.

High sensitivity C-reactive protein is another inflammatory marker that when elevated is really indicative of pathogens in the mouth, among other things. That is one thing that is totally missed by traditional doctors [but] is a key component. The oral testing we do includes Interleukin-6 that tracks closely with C-reactive protein.

If you’ve had root canals or wisdom teeth taken out, or have bleeding gums, [we can] test to see the vast array of pathogens that we know are associated with pretty much every disease syndrome out there.

So, we take these things that have been invisible to the masses and bring it at an affordable cost structure. We have a very robust panel of 55 biomarkers that runs about $150, including vitamin D … If you were to take that same panel, it would be $400 to $500 if you were to go directly to LabCorp.

However, we highly recommend you get this testing from us with a one-hour consult included because of our unique way of explaining the “story” behind your biomarkers — and what you can do to take control of your health. Even with the consult, our pricing is less compared to the labs alone from most places.”

In addition to helping you evaluate your chronic disease risk, this panel will also help you assess your COVID-19 risk. They also offer an advanced panel that is even more comprehensive. It costs about $400 and includes a one-hour consultation to help you understand what all the markers mean.

As noted by Lewis, “It’s all about where do you lie on the health/disease continuum. We very accurately are placing people on that, and there’s not a marker we test for that’s not modifiable through lifestyle or other appropriate interventions. We’re not treating symptoms. We’re going right at the disease.”

Where to Get the Panel

If you’re interested in ordering this panel, go to HealthRevivalPartners.com. If you want to get the comprehensive COVID / JAB risk screening panel, go to www.healthrevivalpartners.com/post-jab-tests. You will be asked to fill out a questionnaire, after which you receive a requisition to have your blood drawn at a LabCorp.

The report you get will be a comprehensive and detailed report from Health Revival Partners in addition to the standard lab report. Carter explains:

“It really starts with the initial questionnaire and we give you a grade from A to F. We wanted to make it so that the average person could really see what is going on in a very tangible fashion. Obviously, you answer 125 questions that are much more probing than your traditional questionnaire.

If you end up with a grade of C, D or F, then that tells you your report card of health is not so good. Then we give guidelines on those questions. When you do your biomarker test, we give you a temperature. It’s called your chronic disease temperature and of course 98.6 is a normal temperature.

When we do the biomarkers, we look at optimal ranges, not just normal ranges. We want everyone to be optimal, not just normal. When those values are either too high or too low out of the optimal range, then you get a corresponding increase in your temperature.

Our “normal” ranges are best on early mortality data for each biomarker. Our normal levels are much tighter compared to the standard of care. We are looking for chronic (smoldering) whereas they are only looking to see if you are very sick or acutely sick.

So now you can have a temperature of, say, 103 based on high homocysteine, high C-reactive protein, high fibrinogen, high white blood cell count and various other biomarkers. We’re testing 55 biomarkers, but 21 of them really home in on and create that temperature setting … Even more biomarkers are part of the COVID panel.

When you correlate that to COVID, we have a little analogy of what’s in your glass. If your glass is a quarter-full, half-full, three-quarters full, you could be walking around with all of these different things: toxins, pesticides, subacute infections.

When your glass gets full and overflowing, then generally that’s going to express as disease. We show where people are on that continuum. How full is your glass of these different things? With the biomarker panel, that gives us a great window [into your COVID risk].”

Building a Stronger Foundation for Functional Medicine

Again, to learn more, and to join the Health Revival Partners’ chronic disease support program, go to HealthRevivalPartners.com. In closing, Lewis notes:

“Integrative and functional medicine is like herding cats. They got into that because they’re outliers, but I’ve been trying to get some of the highest-level leadership in functional medicine to create a core standard of labs that every doctor takes because the biggest reason why you’re not getting served well in medicine today is because the dark side is saying we don’t have the evidence.

One of Carter’s and my life’s goals is to herd the functional integrative cats together to build standards, and I think we’ve done a very good job of creating a very important end-point standard that I think anybody could hang their hat on. That’s early mortality. So, we really want to do that.

“The other part of it is we wrote a peer-reviewed paper1 last year, and we coined the term the ‘pre-cytokine storm.’ Carter talked about your glass being a quarter-full, half-full or overflowing. Measuring your pre-cytokine storm — which our panel incorporates, and then our COVID panel expands even more, so either of those panels are available to anybody that comes to our site — will tell you what your risk factors are.

Your blood doesn’t lie. So, what I’m hoping people will do is become part of the solution. Take the COVID and the vaccine survey, get your COVID risks labs drawn, and then we’ll be able to report back to you and publish peer-reviewed articles about this correlation that right now we’re all being marginalized on because we’re not creating enough evidence.

Judy [Mikovits] knows exactly what’s going on, but to convince the world, we’ve got to get more conventional and functional lab data in large sets to prove our point. That’s how we’re going to start winning, with evidence-based functional medicine.”

August 29, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

Who Is ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’?

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Children’s Health Defense | August 25, 2021

Today, Dr. Anthony Fauci is a household hero to half of America. Drug companies, government officials and the pharma-funded corporate media invoke his name to justify lockdowns, masks and experimental vaccines. The other half do not look on him favourably.

A recent editorial in a leading medical journal urged Congress to make it a felony to publicly criticize Dr. Fauci.

Encouraging his own deification, Dr. Fauci has declared that all those who questioned his pronouncements are “anti-science.”

But who is Dr. Fauci really?

In my new book, I show that Dr. Fauci has done little to earn the sobriquet  “America’s Doctor.”

Instead, he has survived 50 years as the J. Edgar Hoover of public health by consistently prioritizing Big Pharma profits over the welfare of his countrymen, and through mercenary homage to the chemical and agricultural industry, the military industrial complex, the intelligence apparatus and all the other pushers of pills, potions, powders, poisons, pricks and the police state.

During more than a year of painstaking and meticulous research, I unearthed a shocking story that obliterates the obsequious media’s spin on Dr. Fauci … and that will alarm every American — Democrat or Republican — who cares about democracy, our Constitution and the future of our children’s health.

In my book I reveal how Fauci:

  • has been the principal architect of “agency capture” — the subversion of democracy by a drug industry that manipulates regulators like sock puppets.
  • failed dismally over his 50-year career with the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to address the cause, to prevent or cure the exploding epidemics of allergies and chronic disease that Congress charged him with curtailing. The chronic disease pandemic is his enduring legacy. Those ailments now debilitate 54 percent of American children compared to 6 percent when he joined NIAD.
  • repeatedly used fraud, bullying, intimidation, dissembling and falsified science to win approval for worthless and deadly drugs and vaccines.
  • sabotaged safe and effective off-patent therapeutic treatments for AIDS while promoting deadly chemotherapy drugs that almost certainly caused more deaths than HIV.
  • transformed NIAD from a public health regulator into an incubator for pharmaceutical drugs for which he and his trusted deputies often file patents and collect royalties. Dr. Fauci has claimed Moderna vaccine patent rights worth billions of dollars for NIAD and hand-picked at least four of his NIAD underlings to receive $150,000 annually from royalties.
  • exercises dictatorial control over the army of “knowledge-and-innovation” leaders who appear nightly on TV to parrot his orthodoxies and “debunk” his opponents who run his crooked clinical trials globally and who populate the “independent” federal panels that approve and mandate drugs and vaccines — including the committees that allowed the Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 vaccines.
  • violated federal law to allow his pharma partners to sacrifice and kill hundreds of impoverished and dark-skinned children and orphans in the U.S and Africa as lab rats in deadly experiments with toxic AIDS and cancer chemotherapies.
  • repeatedly concocted and weaponized fraudulent pandemics, including bird flu (2005), swine flu (2009) and Zika (2015-2016), in order to sell novel vaccines.
  • partnered with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to conduct “gain-of-function” experiments to breed pandemic superbugs in poorly regulated labs in Wuhan, China  and elsewhere, under conditions that virtually guaranteed the escape of weaponized microbes like SARS-CoV-2.

That’s just the short list.

Dr. Fauci and his band of pharma and Silicon Valley profiteers — working with corrupted politicians, captured federal agencies and the bought and brain-dead mainstream media — have used the COVID pandemic to mint billions from vaccines and other profitable medicines.

His disastrous mismanagement ran up one of the biggest COVID death counts among all nations.

Dr. Fauci has led the crusade to suppress functional remedies like Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine which could have avoided 80 percent of the deaths and hospitalizations from COVID and ended the pandemic overnight.

We need to stop Dr. Fauci and the coup d’état against the Constitution, human rights and liberal democracy globally.

Because this book threatens their trillion-dollar vaccine enterprise, Dr. Fauci and his allies in the medical cartel, the media and military will hurl fierce criticism and use censorship — to debunk and silence “The Real Anthony Fauci.”

With your help, this book can play a transformational role in exposing Dr. Fauci as a charlatan and quack and in showing the world that Dr. Fauci, far from being a healer, is one the most noteworthy mass murderers in human history. 

It is my hope that this book will motivate — and mobilize — millions more advocates for truth, health and democracy.

“The Real Anthony Fauci” publication date is Nov. 9. By pre-ordering your copy today, you’ll help push the book to bestseller status, diminishing the powers of the censors to silence me. Thank you.

August 25, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 2 Comments

The Cult Of “Science” Has Got To Be Smashed

By Tom Woods | Principia Scientific | August 6, 2021

Should we trust people who claim to be speaking in the name of science?

Someone on Twitter just posted this, thinking himself profound:

“If you think you don’t trust scientists, you’re mistaken. You trust scientists in a million different ways every time you step on a plane, or for that matter turn on your tap or open a can of beans. The fact that you’re unaware of this doesn’t mean it’s not so.”

Saifedean Ammous, a great friend of the Tom Woods Show, wasn’t about to let this stand.

Before going any further, let me add this: after the past 18 months, I think the dangers and absurdities of scientism have become clear enough.

“Science” does not and is not intended to have the answers to all questions. It does not and cannot tell us what we should value, what our priorities should be, whether certain behaviors are morally acceptable or indeed required, etc.

Staring longingly at men in white coats, seeking the meaning of life, is superstition of the worst kind.

Not to mention: the standard story of how science progresses is completely wrong. We do not move forward because government-subsidized men in lab coats play around in laboratories doing “basic science” untainted by mundane concerns.

It is generally men of action who actually do the work.

Now for Saifedean:

The Wright brothers and a century of airplane builders were engineers. Scientists first dismissed flight as impossible even after it happened, then made up a bunch of irrelevant equations to pretend to explain how it happened.

Everything that matters to our modern life was built by engineers and workers who got their hands dirty. Scientists sat in cushy universities writing textbooks after the fact indoctrinating generations to think it was their post-hoc explanations that built things.

Lord Kelvin was one of the world’s most important scientists when airplanes were invented. This is what he thought:

“I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning, or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we heard of.”

Astronomer and polymath Simon Newcomb in 1903:

“Aerial flight is one of that class of problems with which man will never be able to cope.”

This was the same year in which the Wright Brothers,  two bicycle shop owner high school dropouts, built the first working airplane.

Three years after the Wright Brothers flew, The London Times dismissed their claims of flight as fake, and was instead writing:

“All attempts at artificial aviation are not only dangerous to human life, but foredoomed to failure from the engineering standpoint.”

The first commercial steam engine was invented by Simon Newcomen, a barely literate ironmonger who had never come in contact with a scientist. James Watt was a technician, not a scientist, and explicitly denied that any scientific theories influenced his invention.

The scientific method is practiced by engineers building things, experimenting to see what works. Professional science consists mostly of nerds quibbling over each other’s irrelevant papers and agreeing they all need more funding.

Nothing in science needs trust. I don’t trust anyone to get in an airplane. I look at the track record of airplanes and decide the risks are acceptable given the benefits. “Trust science” is how you end up with billions of lives destroyed over virus hysteria.

I love Saifedean.

The real story of science, again, is something like the opposite of what we’ve been told. Not to mention: countries that heavily subsidized science in the nineteenth century lagged behind the UK, which spent no government money.

I tell the story in my 2011 book Rollback, but the classic treatment is Terence Kealey, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.

At Liberty Classroom, my dashboard university, we don’t go in for cutesy myths about how the world works. We tell the un-p.c. truth, every time.

August 6, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Authoritarians Drunk on Power: It Is Time to Recalibrate the Government

By John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead | The Rutherford Institute | July 27, 2021

It is time to recalibrate the government.

For years now, we have suffered the injustices, cruelties, corruption and abuse of an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution or the rights of the citizenry.

By “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

We are overdue for a systemic check on the government’s overreaches and power grabs.

We have lingered too long in this strange twilight zone where ego trumps justice, propaganda perverts truth, and imperial presidents—empowered to indulge their authoritarian tendencies by legalistic courts, corrupt legislatures and a disinterested, distracted populace—rule by fiat rather than by the rule of law.

This COVID-19 pandemic has provided the government with the perfect excuse to lay claim to a long laundry list of terrifying lockdown powers (at both the federal and state level) that override the Constitution: the ability to suspend the Constitution, indefinitely detain American citizens, bypass the courts, quarantine whole communities or segments of the population, override the First Amendment by outlawing religious gatherings and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, reshape financial markets, create a digital currency (and thus further restrict the use of cash), determine who should live or die, and impose health mandates on large segments of the population.

These kinds of crises tend to bring out the authoritarian tendencies in government.

That’s no surprise: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Where we find ourselves now is in the unenviable position of needing to rein in all three branches of government—the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative—that have exceeded their authority and grown drunk on power.

So what we can do to wrest back control over a runaway government and an imperial presidency?

It won’t be easy.

We are the unwitting victims of a system so corrupt that those who stand up for the rule of law and aspire to transparency in government are in the minority. This corruption is so vast it spans all branches of government: from the power-hungry agencies under the executive branch and the corporate puppets within the legislative branch to a judiciary that is, more often than not, elitist and biased towards government entities and corporations.

The predators of the police state are wreaking havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government doesn’t listen to the citizenry, it refuses to abide by the Constitution, which is our rule of law, and it treats the citizenry as a source of funding and little else.

In other words, the American police state is alive and well and flourishing.

We have arrived at the dystopian future depicted in the 2005 film V for Vendetta, which is no future at all.

Set in the year 2020, V for Vendetta provides an eerie glimpse into a parallel universe in which a government-engineered virus wreaks havoc on the world. Capitalizing on the people’s fear, a totalitarian government comes to power that knows all, sees all, controls everything and promises safety and security above all.

Concentration camps (jails, private prisons and detention facilities) have been established to house political prisoners and others deemed to be enemies of the state. Executions of undesirables (extremists, troublemakers and the like) are common, while other enemies of the state are made to “disappear.” Populist uprisings and protests are met with extreme force. The television networks are controlled by the government with the purpose of perpetuating the regime. And most of the population is hooked into an entertainment mode and are clueless.

Sounds painfully familiar, doesn’t it?

In V for Vendetta, as in my new novel The Erik Blair Diaries, it takes an act of terrorism for the people to finally mobilize and stand up to the government’s tyranny: in Vendetta, V the film’s masked crusader blows up the seat of government, while in Erik Blair, freedom fighters plot to unmask the Deep State.

These acts of desperation and outright anarchy are what happens when a parasitical government muzzles the citizenry, fences them in, herds them, brands them, whips them into submission, forces them to ante up the sweat of their brows while giving them little in return, and then provides them with little to no outlet for voicing their discontent: people get desperate, citizens lose hope, and lawful, nonviolent resistance gives way to unlawful, violent resistance.

This way lies madness.

Then again, this madness may be unavoidable unless we can wrest back control over our runaway government starting at the local level.

How to do this? It’s not rocket science.

There is no 10-step plan. If there were a 10-step plan, however, the first step would be as follows: turn off the televisions, tune out the politicians, and do your part to stand up for freedom principles in your own communities.

Stand up for your own rights, of course, but more importantly, stand up for the rights of those with whom you might disagree. Defend freedom at all costs. Defend justice at all costs. Make no exceptions based on race, religion, creed, politics, immigration status, sexual orientation, etc. Vote like Americans, for a change, not Republicans or Democrats.

Most of all, use your power—and there is power in our numbers—to nullify anything and everything the government does that undermines the freedom principles on which this nation was founded.

Don’t play semantics. Don’t justify. Don’t politicize it. If it carries even a whiff of tyranny, oppose it. Demand that your representatives in government cut you a better deal, one that abides by the Constitution and doesn’t just attempt to sidestep it.

That’s their job: make them do it.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all freedoms hang together. They fall together, as well.

The police state does not discriminate. Eventually, we will all suffer the same fate.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

July 28, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Civil Liberties, Film Review | , | 4 Comments

Joseph P. Kennedy, the Cursed Peacemaker

BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 10, 2021

There can be no complete understanding of John Kennedy without some understanding of his father, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, for this is where he came from, not only in his own eyes and those of his friends, but in the eyes of his enemies too. The same is true for his brother Robert, of course.

I have emphasized before that, although very different in character, John and Robert Kennedy may be seen, from the point of view of their historical significance, as one person killed twice. But it should be stressed that their unity was grounded in their filial piety. I learned from David Nasaw’s biography, The PatriarchThe Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy (2012), that it was their father Joe who insisted that Jack name Bobby Attorney General, because “Jack needed someone in the cabinet in whom he had complete and absolute trust.” Robert didn’t like the idea, arguing that “nepotism was a problem,” and John was reluctant to pressure Bobby.

He decided to offer Bobby the number two position at the Defense Department and asked Clark Clifford, who was running his transition team, to go to New York to explain to [Joe] Kennedy, who had flown there after visiting Jackie and his new grandson in the hospital, why Bobby should not be named attorney general. Clifford agreed, though he thought it rather odd that the president-elect had asked “a third party to try to talk to his father about his brother.” Clifford met Kennedy at Kennedy’s apartment and presented his carefully rehearsed case against the appointment. “I was pleased with my presentation; it was, I thought, persuasive. When I had finished, Kennedy said, ‘Thank you very much, Clark. I am so glad to have heard your views.’ Then, pausing a moment, he said, ‘I do want to leave you with one thought, however — one firm thought.’ He paused again, and looked me straight in the eye. ‘Bobby is going to be Attorney General. All of us have worked our tails off for Jack, and now that we have succeeded I am going to see to it that Bobby gets the same chance that we gave to Jack.’ I would always,” Clifford recalled years later, “remember the intense but matter-of-fact tone with which he had spoken — there was no rancor, no anger, no challenge.” The father had spoken, and his sons, on this issue at least, were expected to obey.[1]

Although there is no recorded statement to that effect, Joe probably envisioned that Robert could succeed Jack as president in 1968. And it is easy to imagine that, had John survived and been reelected in 1964, Robert, with John’s support and under his watch, could have inherited the White House. We may ponder what the world would be like today had there been Kennedys in the White House until 1976.

John and Robert shared a common horror of modern war, and that, too, was their father’s legacy. John was a genuine war hero decorated with the Navy and Marine Medal for “extremely heroic conduct.” Yet on Victory in Europe Day, May 8, 1945, as a young journalist covering the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, he wrote in the Herald-American: “Any man who had risked his life for his country and seen his friends killed around him must inevitably wonder why this has happened to him and most important what good will it do. . . . it is not surprising that they should question the worth of their sacrifice and feel somewhat betrayed.”[2] When announcing his candidacy for Congress on April 22, 1946, JFK declared: “Above all, day and night, with every ounce of ingenuity and industry we possess, we must work for peace. We must not have another war.”[3] Hugh Sidey, one of his journalist friends, wrote about him: “If I had to single out one element in Kennedy’s life that more than anything else influenced his later leadership it would be a horror of war, a total revulsion over the terrible toll that modern war had taken on individuals, nations, and societies, and the even worse prospects in the nuclear age. . . . It ran even deeper than his considerable public rhetoric on the issue.”[4] John once said to his friend Ben Bradlee that he believed that “the primary function of the president of the United States [was] to keep the country out of war.”[5]

That was the conviction that had guided his father throughout his political life in Franklin Roosevelt’s government, until his resignation in December 1940. As U.S. ambassador to London, Joe Kennedy wholeheartedly supported Neville Chamberlain’s policy of “appeasement” in 1938-39. He wanted peace as passionately as Churchill wanted war. “I am pro-peace, I pray, hope, and work for peace,” Joe declared on his first return from London to the U.S. in December 1938.[6] For this, he ended in the wrong side of history, which Churchill took care to write himself.

The Stain of Appeasement

Like his father, President Kennedy was a determined peacemaker, and those in the Pentagon who wanted to push the U.S. into a third world war tried to destabilize him with insinuations that he was an appeaser like his father. On October 19, 1962, in the heat of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as Kennedy resolved to blockade Soviet shipments rather than bomb and invade Cuba, General Curtis LeMay scornfully told him, “This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich . . . I just don’t see any other solution except direct military intervention right now.”[7]

The stain of his father’s record as a Hitler-appeaser had followed John like a shadow. Although the press had not published it, it was no secret in the Pentagon and the CIA that the U.S. army had discovered in 1946, in Berlin’s Foreign Office, reports about Joe’s meetings with German ambassador von Ribbentrop and his successor von Dirksen, that said that Joe was Germany’s “best friend” in London and “understood our Jewish policy completely.”[8]

Ambassadors Joseph P. Kennedy and Joachim von Ribbentrop

In a joint debate during the 1960 Democratic convention, Johnson had attacked John as being the son of a “Chamberlain umbrella man” who “thought Hitler was right.”[9] During Kennedy’s presidential campaign, the Israeli press worried that Kennedy’s father “never loved the Jews and therefore there is a question about whether the father did not inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his son John’s.”[10] Abraham Feinberg recalls that when he invited Kennedy to his apartment to discuss his campaign funding with “all the leading Jews,” one of them set the tone with this remark: “Jack, everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” Kennedy came back outraged from that meeting (but with the promise of $500,000).[11] When meeting the new president on May 30, 1961 in New York, Ben-Gurion could not help but see in him the son of a Hitler-appeaser. Feinberg (who arranged the meeting) recalls that “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy].”[12]

Is Joe’s bad reputation among Jews relevant to the assassination of his two sons? Many Jewish authors think it is. In his book The Kennedy Curse, purporting to explain “why tragedy has haunted America’s first family for 150 years”, Edward Klein links the “Kennedy curse” to Joe’s anti-Semitism, citing a story “told in mystical Jewish circles” (perhaps made up by Klein) according to which, in “retaliation” to some remark Joe made to “Israel Jacobson, a poor Lubavitcher rabbi and six of his yeshiva students, who were fleeing the Nazis,” “Rabbi Jacobson put a curse on Kennedy, damning him and all his male offspring to tragic fates.”[13] Ronald Kessler, for his part, wrote a book titled, The Sins of the Father — a not so subtle allusion to Exodus 20:5: “I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Naturally, for Kessler, Joe Kennedy’s worst sin was that “he was a documented anti-Semite and an appeaser of Adolf Hitler” who “admired the Nazis.”[14]

The “Kennedy curse” did run into the third generation and possibly the fourth, when John’s only son died in a suspicious plane accident on July 16, 1999, with his wife, possibly pregnant. Five days later, John Podhoretz, son of neoconservative luminary Norman Podhoretz, published in the New York Post an opinion piece titled “A Conversation in Hell” in which he imagined Satan speaking to Joe Kennedy in Hell. The devil rejoices at the idea of eternally torturing Joe for “saying all those nice things about Hitler,” and brags of having caused the death of his grandson because, he says: “When I make a deal for a soul like yours, I need to season it before I’m ready to put it in the infernal oven.” This hateful fantasy, which is reminding of the Talmud’s depiction of Jesus in Hell, illustrates the devouring hatred of some Jewish intellectuals toward the Kennedys, and the root of that hatred in Joe Kennedy’s effort to prevent the Second World War.[15]

Interestingly, Podhoretz’s devil (or is it Yahweh?) accuses Kennedy of having done “everything you could to prevent Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews died because of you.” The truth is exactly the opposite. In 1938, the “Kennedy Plan”, as the press called it, was to rescue German Jews. Since the U.S. government refused to open its borders to Jewish refugees, and since Great Britain strictly limited Jewish immigration to Palestine, Joe was urging the British government to open up its African colonies for temporary resettlement. “To facilitate the resettlement process,” Nasaw writes, “Kennedy volunteered to Halifax that he ‘thought that private sources in America might well contribute $100 or $200 million if any large scheme of land settlement could be proposed.’”[16] The plan was presented to Chamberlain just days after Kristallnacht (9-10 November 1938), and was supported by Jewish financier Bernard Baruch. But it angered the Zionists, who didn’t want to hear about any Jewish emigration except to Palestine, because, Ben-Gurion said, it “will endanger the existence of Zionism.”[17] Therefore, today, the “Kennedy Plan” is reviled as a kind of “final solution to the Jewish question,” and further proof that Joe was Israel’s mortal enemy.[18]

If Jewish hatred of Joe Kennedy could still inspire Podhoretz’s nasty column in 1999, imagine how deep it ran in the 1960s. At the height of his showdown with JFK over Dimona, 25 April 1963, Ben-Gurion wrote him a seven-page letter explaining that his people was threatened with extermination by a newly formed Arab Federation, just like when “six million Jews in all the countries under Nazi occupations (except Bulgaria), men and women, old and young, infants and babies, were burnt, strangled, buried alive.” “Imbued with the lessons of the Holocaust,” Avner Cohen comments, “Ben Gurion was consumed by fears for Israel’s security.”[19] He was enraged by what he saw as Kennedy’s obvious lack of concern for his people’s security, and at this point, he must have decided that Kennedy was indeed his father’s son, a modern-day Haman.

Before we get to the main piece of evidence of a direct relationship between Joe Kennedy’s appeasement policy and John Kennedy’s assassination, let us get an overview of Joe’s public career, using mainly David Nasaw’s biography and on Michael Beschloss’s Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance (1979).

The Ambassador

Joe Kennedy entered national politics as a supporter of Roosevelt in his first presidential campaign in 1932. In July 1934, Roosevelt asked him to chair the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission, charged with bringing the New Deal to Wall Street by regulating and disciplining the Stock Exchange market. Kennedy announced: “the days of stock manipulation are over. Things that seemed all right a few years ago find no place in our present-day philosophy.” According to Beschloss, Kennedy “won almost universal praise for his salesmanship, political acumen, and ability to moderate conflicting sides that encouraged capital investment and economic recovery.” “Few were more impressed by Kennedy’s accomplishment than the man who hired him,” and “Joseph Kennedy increasingly became a familiar figure at the White House.”[20]

In 1936, Joe supported Roosevelt’s second campaign with a book titled I’m for Roosevelt (mostly ghost-written by Arthur Krock). He was hoping to be named Secretary of the Treasury, but Henry Morgenthau Jr. also wanted the job, and got it. Instead, Roosevelt named Joe chairman of the Maritime Commission, and one year later made him ambassador to London. As war was brooding in Europe, this was an important position, and Joe made it more important by often overstepping his Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s instructions.

He supported Chamberlain’s position that the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia was not worth a war, declaring in September 2, 1938, “for the life of me I cannot see anything involved which could be remotely considered worth shedding blood for,” a statement for which he was reprimanded by Hull and Roosevelt.[21] On October 19, Joe began another speech by jokingly listing the topics he had decided not to talk about, including “a theory of mine that it is unproductive for both democratic and dictator countries to widen the division now existing between them by emphasizing their differences, which are self-apparent.”[22] Hull held a press conference the next morning to clarify that Kennedy had been speaking for himself, not the government, and Roosevelt delivered his own display of belligerence: “There can be no peace if national policy adopts as a deliberate instrument the threat of war.”[23]

In the meantime, without informing Hull, Kennedy had summoned Charles Lindbergh to London and asked him to write a letter, to be forwarded to Washington and to Whitehall, summarizing his view regarding the strength of the Luftwaffe. Lindbergh had just visited German airfields (and been presented the Service Cross of the German Eagle by Goering), and concluded that the Luftwaffe would be unassailable in a war of the skies. Kennedy then arranged a meeting between Lindbergh and an official of the British air ministry.[24] His diplomatic strategy consisted in trying to convince the British that Germany was unbeatable and that the U.S. wouldn’t join the fight, so that the British had better come to terms with Germany, whose territorial claims were justified anyway.

In the same period, Joe made plans to meet in Paris with Dr. Helmuth Wohlthat, Goering’s chief economic adviser, with whom he had made contact through James Mooney, the president of General Motors Overseas. As Nasaw explains, “Kennedy was in effect laying the groundwork for a new appeasement strategy, one that would buy Hitler off by providing him with the means to convert his war economy to a peace economy.”[25] Hull forbade him to go to Paris, so Joe met Wohlthat in London without informing Hull.

In August 23, 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, Kennedy urged Roosevelt, in vain, to pressure the Polish government to cede territory to Germany.[26] After Hitler’s invasion, Kennedy, like Chamberlain, was heartbroken: “It’s the end of the world . . . the end of everything,” he told Roosevelt on the phone.[27] But a week later, he was still urging him to save peace, writing him: “It seems to me that this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world. The British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for world peace.”[28] He got his response from Hull: “The people of the United States would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and of aggression.”

Simultaneously, Roosevelt was initiating direct contact with Churchill, now First Lord of the Admiralty and soon to be Prime Minister. From Roosevelt’s letters, Churchill got enough confidence that the U.S. would ultimately join the war if it broke out, and he bet everything on it. Joe was infuriated when learning about this most irregular channel of communication, at a time when the President was bound by neutrality laws and the American people overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. engagement. Joe was particularly distressed by Roosevelt’s trust in Churchill, whom Joe considered “an actor and a politician. He always impressed me that he’d blow up the American Embassy and say it was the Germans if it would get the U.S. in.”[29] In early December 1939, Kennedy confided to Jay Pierrepont Moffat of the State Department that Churchill “is ruthless and scheming. He is also in touch with groups in America which have the same idea, notably, certain strong Jewish leaders.”[30]

After the defeat of France, Kennedy saw a new opportunity for peace. He cabled Washington on May 27, 1940, recommending that the President push Britain and France to negotiate an end to the crisis, as Lord Halifax, still Foreign Secretary, was actually proposing. “I suspect that the Germans would be willing to make peace with both the French and British now — of course on their own terms, but on terms that would be a great deal better than they would be if the war continues.”[31]

Although aware that Roosevelt was now ignoring him, Joe remained at his post until October 1940. Before leaving, he wrote a note to Chamberlain, then a broken and dying man: “For me to have been any service to you in your struggle is the real worthwhile epoch in my career. You have retired but mark my words the world will yet see that your struggle was never in vain. My job from now on is to tell the world of your hopes. Now and forever, Your devoted friend, Joe Kennedy.”[32] Joe Kennedy was still a convinced appeaser, determined to give peace every chance.

David Irving mentions that, before boarding a ship from Lisbon to New York, Kennedy “pleaded with the State Department to announce that, even if this vessel mysteriously blew up in mid-Atlantic with an American ambassador on board, Washington would not consider it a cause for war. ‘I thought,’ wrote Kennedy in his scurrilous unpublished memoirs, ‘that would give me some protection against Churchill’s placing a bomb on the ship.’”[33]

Kennedy arrived in New York October 27, a week before election day. He knew enough of Roosevelt’s secret contacts with Churchill to endanger his reelection. He was seriously considering speaking out to the press. In a wire to his lover and admirer Clare Booth Luce, he promised a bombshell that would “put twenty-five million Catholic voters behind [Republican candidate] Wendell Willkie to throw Roosevelt out.”[34]

But Joe had a strong sense of loyalty, and his wife reminded him of a political truth instinctive to them both: “The President sent you, a Roman Catholic, as Ambassador to London, which probably no other President would have done. . . . You would write yourself down as an ingrate in the view of many people if you resign now.”[35] After a long conversation with Roosevelt on the day of his arrival, of which nothing has transpired, Kennedy gave a radio address over CBS on October 29 to endorse Roosevelt, but not without reasserting his “conviction that this country must and will stay out of war.” A few days later, with Joe Kennedy by his side, Roosevelt made his own pledge: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars!”[36] Roosevelt was elected. On December 1, 1940, Kennedy delivered his resignation letter, and told reporters: “My plan is . . . to devote my efforts to what seems to me to be the greatest cause in the world today . . . That cause is to help the President keep the United States out of war.”[37]

On December 17, Roosevelt revealed at a press conference his plans to provide billions of dollars in war supplies to Great Britain in the form of Lend-Lease (eventually, the U.S. would supply England with $13 billion). Joe expressed privately his feeling of having been exploited by the President. But he stayed in relatively good terms with Roosevelt, although he refused to support his nomination for a fourth term, when he visited him on October 26, 1944 in the White House. Kennedy recorded in his notes telling the President — a very sick man — that the Catholic voters were hesitant to vote for him because “they felt that Roosevelt was Jew controlled.” He added that he agreed “with the group who felt that the Hopkins, Rosenmans, and Frankfurters, and the rest of the incompetents would rob Roosevelt of the place in history that he hoped, I am sure, to have. . . . Roosevelt went on to say ‘Why, I don’t see Frankfurter twice a year.’ And I said to him, ‘You see him twenty times a day but you don’t know it because he works through all these other groups of people without your knowing it.’”[38]

After his resignation in 1941, Joe had envisioned writing a memoir of his London years, and told his friend and former president Herbert Hoover that the book would “put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D. Roosevelt.” But, Beschloss comments, “the necessities of wartime unity and, later, his sons’ political careers kept Joseph Kennedy’s diplomatic memoir out of print, where it remained.”[39]

Here, there is an interesting parallel with James Forrestal, another American patriot of Irish Catholic stock and a friend of Joe Kennedy. As David Martin shows in his book The Assassination of James Forrestal (summarized here), when Forrestal was pushed out of the Defense Department by Truman in March 1949, he planned to write a book and to start a magazine. As Navy Secretary, he had gained inside knowledge of Roosevelt’s scheme to provoke the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. In 1945, he had worked behind the scene to achieve a negotiated surrender from the Japanese, and was very bitter about Roosevelt’s demand for “unconditional surrender” and the unnecessary suffering imposed on the Japanese. Forrestal had also much to say about the way the Zionists obtained the Partition Plan at the U.N. General Assembly, or about the way Truman was bought into supporting the recognition of Israel. On April 2, 1949, Forrestal was interned against his will and forcibly confined in the 16th floor of the Navy hospital of Bethesda, and on May 22 was declared to have fallen from a window while trying to hang himself from it with a dressing-gown sash. No criminal investigation was conducted, but the evidence obtained by David Martin through a Freedom of Information Act leaves no doubt that he was assassinated by the Zionist mafia.

It is easy to imagine that, had Joe Kennedy decided to expose Roosevelt’s betrayal of the American people and the Jewish intrigues to push him into the war, he might have suffered the same fate as Forrestal. Instead, he retired from public life and devoted his remaining influence to his sons’ political future. Despite the death of his eldest son Joe Jr. in a high-risk mission in 1944, he achieved his presidential ambition through his second son. The “Kennedy curse,” however, would ultimately catch up with his lineage.

John Kennedy’s Intellectual Filiation

John has always been loyal to his father’s memory, and there is enough evidence that he shared his most fundamental principles and his views of World War II. In 1956, in his book Profiles in Courage, John praised Senator Robert Taft for having, at tremendous personal cost, denounced in 1946 the hanging of eleven Nazi officials as “a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”[40] One symbolic hint of President Kennedy’s intellectual and political filiation with his father was his invitation of Charles Lindbergh on May 11, 1962, for a grand reception at the White House. Lindbergh and his wife caused a sensation when they dined at the presidential table and stayed overnight at the White House.[41] Let’s recall that, in September 1940, Lindbergh had been a founding member of the America First Committee and the staunchest critic of Roosevelt’s ploys to drag the U.S. into the war.[42] His reputation had suffered tremendously from his criticism of Jewish influence, and he had been living as a recluse ever since.

Kennedy had nothing to gain politically from inviting Lindbergh very publicly to the White House. The significance of this gesture should not be underestimated. It probably demonstrates a wish to vindicate the vilified appeasers of 1938-40. Lindbergh at the White House may have been a sign that the wheel was turning, and that history would soon be written in a more balanced way. John’s assassination halted and reversed this movement. Half a decade later, along with the expansion of Israel, the dark cult of the Holocaust would start swamping over the U.S. and the world. Arguably, if Kennedy had lived, there would be no compulsory Holocaust religion today.

For those like David Ben-Gurion whose self-image and worldview revolved around the Holocaust, the Kennedy brothers were essentially sons of a Hitler-appeaser and Nazi-supporter, and their leadership of the United-States was an existential threat as well as an intolerable insult. Although, for obvious reasons, this murderous hatred is seldom expressed publicly (John Podhoretz’s “A Conversation in Hell” is a remarkable exception), it is a critical fact to take into account in our quest to solve the mystery of the “Kennedy curse.” And it sheds a bright light on one of the most bizarre aspects of JFK’s assassination.

In his 1967 book titled Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the President, Josiah Thompson first drew attention to a character who can be seen on the Zapruder film and on other photographs taken in Dealey Plaza at the moment of JFK’s assassination. Here is how Thompson presents him in a short video recorded by Errol Morris for the New York Times in 2011:

On November 22nd, it rained the night before. But everything cleared by about 9 or 9:30 in the morning. So if you were looking at various photographs of the motorcade route, in the crowd gathered there, you will have noticed: nobody is wearing a raincoat, nobody has an open umbrella. Why? Because it’s a beautiful day. And then I noticed: in all of Dallas, there appears to be exactly one person standing under and open black umbrella. And that person is standing where the shots began to rain into the limousine. Let us call him “the umbrella man”. . . . You can see him in certain frames from the Zapruder film, standing right there by the Stemmons Freeway sign. There are other still photographs taken from other locations in Dealey Plaza, which shows the whole man standing under an open black umbrella — the only person under any umbrella in all of Dallas, standing right at the location where all the shots come into the limousine. Can any one come up with a non-sinister explanation for this? So I published this in Six Seconds, but didn’t speculate about what it meant . . . Well, I asked that the Umbrella Man to come forward and explain this. So he did. He came forward and he went to Washington with his umbrella, and he testified in 1978 before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He explained then why he had opened the umbrella and was standing there that day. The open umbrella was a kind of protest, a visual protest. It wasn’t a protest of any of John Kennedy’s policies as president. It was a protest at the appeasement policy of Joseph P. Kennedy, John Kennedy’s father when he was ambassador to the court of Saint James in 1938 and 39. It was a reference to Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella.[43]

The black umbrella had been Chamberlain’s iconic trademark, and, after his return from Munich, a symbol of “appeasement”, both for those who supported it (some old ladies “suggested that Chamberlain’s umbrella be broken up and pieces sold as sacred relics”)[44] and for those who opposed it (“Wherever Chamberlain traveled, the opposition party in Britain protested his appeasement at Munich by displaying umbrellas,” according to Edward Miller).

The Umbrella Man was Louie Steven Witt, and had been identified by local newsmen before he came forward to the HSCA. Josiah Thompson assumes that his “visual protest” and JFK’s assassination are unrelated, and that they happened at the exact same time and place by some kind of quantum-physics coincidence. He cannot bring himself to see the connection, even though the Umbrella Man himself made it clear to the HSCA that he wanted to “heckle” JFK about his father’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938. Knowing what we know about Jewish perception of the “Kennedy curse” as linked to the “sins of the father”, we cannot but find Thompson’s refusal to see anything conspiratorial as very typical of Gentile self-induced blindness.

Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a sayan? Not necessarily. He might have been instructed to do what he did without knowing that Kennedy would be killed right in front of him. On the other hand, the explanation he gave for his “bad joke” sounds disingenuous: “In a coffee break conversation,” he said, “someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. . . . I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.” Witt carefully avoided mentioning why the umbrella was “a sore spot with the Kennedy family.” He also avoided naming Joe Kennedy when he said that he had heard that “some members of the Kennedy family” had once been offended in an airport by people brandishing umbrellas. The “airport” sounds like an allusive reference to Chamberlain’s widely publicized return at the Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938. There is clearly a cryptic undertone in Witt’s explanation. For those Unz Review readers who have ears to hear and eyes to see, executing JFK while “heckling” him about his father’s appeasement policy should be an unmistakable signature. Chamberlain’s umbrella is Kennedy’s cross.

Laurent Guyénot, Ph.D., is the author of The Unspoken Kennedy Truth(2021), Essays on Jewish Power(2020), and From Yahweh to Zion (2018).

Notes

[1] David Nasaw, The PatriarchThe Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy, Penguin Books, 2012, pp. 818-819.

[2] Christ Matthews, Jack Kennedy, Elusive Hero, Simon & Schuster, 2011, pp. 71-72.

[3] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. 5.

[4] Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, HarperCollins, 2018, p. 101.

[5] Quoted in Robert Kennedy, Jr., American Values, p. 101.

[6] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187.

[7] Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 21.

[8] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 349.

[9] Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 362.

[10] In the journal of the Herut, Menachem Begin’s political party, quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2013, p. 252.

[11] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991, p. 96.

[12] Hersh, The Samson Option, p. 103.

[13] Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004.

[14] Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Coronet Books, 1997, quotes from the publisher’s presentation and the back cover.

[15] John Podhoretz, “A Conversation in Hell,” New York Post, July 21, 1999, on nypost.com

[16] Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 403-406.

[17] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 1: The False Messiah, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 164.

[18] Clive Irving, “Joe Kennedy’s answer to the Jewish question: ship them to Africa,” Apr. 14, 2017, on www.thedailybeast.com

[19] Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, Columbia UP, 1998, pp. 10, 119.

[20] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 105-109.

[21] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 373; also Beschloff, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 180.

[22] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 396.

[23] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 185-186.

[24] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 182.

[25] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 425.

[26] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 445.

[27] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 199.

[28] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 201.

[29] Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 460-461. The quote is from Joe Kennedy’s diary, according to David Irving, who renders it slightly differently in Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207.

[30] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 476.

[31] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 496.

[32] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 534.

[33] David Irving, Churchill’s war, vol. 1: The Struggle for Power, Focal Point, 2003, p. 207.

[34] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 15-16.

[35] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 43 and 230.

[36] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, pp. 235-237.

[37] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 247.

[38] Nasaw, The Patriarch, p. 625; Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 279.

[39] Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt, p. 273.

[40] Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 p. 199.

[41] “Visit of Charles A. Lindbergh”, on www.jfklibrary.org

[42] Lynne Olson, Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941, Random House, 2013.

[43] “The Umbrella Man”, on Vimeo.com or YouTube

[44] Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Crown Forum, 2008, p. 208.

July 13, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment