Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The (Formerly Law-Abiding) Citizen’s Guide to Navigating the US Prison System

BY RICHARD SOLOMON • UNZ REVIEW • DECEMBER 26, 2023

The owners shredded the Constitution. Legal protections, or even their simulation of a simulation, no longer exist. In Florida, questioning a historical event or the policies of a Middle East country risks ten years in prison. Taking selfies at a legal demonstration endorsed by a sitting President of the United States can get you almost twenty. A journalist and opinion writer became an international fugitive for insulting a Jewish woman online. Douglas Mackey (X/Twitter handle Ricky Vaughn) received a seven month federal prison sentence for posting a Hillary Clinton election meme. Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis pled guilty to one felony count of “aiding and abetting false statements and writings” after she wrote in a letter that the 2020 election was rigged. To avoid prison (she’ll still be a convicted felon and get disbarred), she agreed to testify against her co-defendants (who will likely receive prison time) in this bizarre “false statements/writings” racketeering case. Given the rapid rise in thought/speech crime incarceration, it behooves citizen-serfs, especially political ones, to gain some familiarity with the workings of the US prison industrial complex.

For the record, I’ve never been to prison. I’m disseminating data picked up from sources who have. If anyone reading this has done prison time or worked/works as a CO (corrections officer) and feels that I’ve misrepresented something, please add your perspective in the comments section. I don’t claim to be an expert on the penal system. Nor do I want to be.

Imagine you repost a meme on social media and get charged with “spreading misinformation while committing hate speech within a fifty-mile radius of an Israeli consulate and or synagogue during the commission of a thought crime.” Your day in court arrives, and after the #MeToo Jacinda Ardern lookalike prosecutor gives her PowerPoint presentation on your online browsing history and puts your bad-breakup ex-girlfriend on the stand, your case goes to a jury of monthly boosted blue and yellow flag emoji patriots. Following an hour of deliberation they return a guilty verdict. (They voted guilty within the first minute, but for appearance’s sake wait an hour before notifying the bailiff). After the Kamala Harris wannabe judge reads a moving passage from Michelle Obama’s “The Light We Carry” and tells you what a degenerate scumbag you are, she sentences you to ten years. What kind of life awaits you inside the prison industrial complex? Prison conditions vary depending on security level, location, and whether it’s a state or federal facility. While low-level fed camps offer the best conditions, high-level federal institutions like USP Atlanta and Beaumont are super barbaric. Alabama and Florida state prisons have bad reputations. Generally speaking, the higher the security level, the more brutal the prison. That’s not to say you can’t get jammed up in a minimum security facility or county jail.

Prison is violent. An angry lifer has little to lose by smashing or stabbing a prisoner he dislikes. “What are you looking at?” can be a tricky question to answer in the civilian world. Much more so in prison.

Even if you’re an astute practitioner of conflict avoidance, in higher-level prisons you will likely receive a “heart check,” i.e. a prisoner tests you. The majority prison consensus for this type of encounter? Fight. The good news is that there is no shame in losing a prison fight. Violence is so common that most prisoners, no matter how tough, have lost a fight during their stay. All that matters is you stood up. For those lacking skills, “flailing arms spaz mode” style seems the best option. It should be over pretty quickly. If you don’t fight, you’ll be labeled prey. This invites future b!tch slap humiliations and extortion. Extortion could mean turning over commissary items, or in more extreme cases, a family member wiring funds to a prisoner’s “girlfriend” to keep you healthy. Predatory prisoners love draining nest eggs. For those with money, refrain from bragging about past French Riviera vacations.

Most prison violence stems from gambling and drugs, especially in regard to debt. If you choose to indulge, pay as you go. Taking commissary on credit also entails risk. Some prisoners operate “stores” whereby they loan out one can of soup with the expectation of receiving two as repayment. Better to go hungry that night. Defaulting on prison debt gets you smashed or stabbed. On occasion, a soft younger inmate runs up a debt he can’t cover. Some creditors accept sexual favors as repayment. Once an inmate goes that route, there’s no coming back. For Boomers and fellow Gen Xers, even if so inclined, that escape hatch won’t be open to you. Nobody wants your old ugly ass. The takeaway—don’t run up prison debt.

Even if you play things right, you could still find yourself housed with a violent psychopath who doesn’t like your face. This could morph into a case of “kill or be killed.” Killing your adversary could get you a life sentence with transfer to a super-max dungeon. Legal self-defense doesn’t carry much weight in prison. If you stab or bludgeon him and he survives, you might only wind up with a few weeks or months in the hole (solitary confinement). Or you could add decades to your sentence and a super-max stay. How a facility’s administration deals with violent offenses varies from prison to prison. In some places, as long as you don’t give staff the paperwork headache of a body, they don’t care how extreme prisoner-on-prisoner violence gets. Alabama prison administrators are known for covering up prison homicides, which could work to your advantage if you need to take out an adversary. Conversely, this could work against you if you wind up on the receiving end of the shank.

When things get too heavy, some prisoners opt to “check-in” (enter protective custody (PC) /solitary confinement). Some guards want you to name your antagonizer(s) before letting you check-in, which technically makes you a “snitch.” Snitches and chomos (pedophiles) inhabit the lowest rung of the prison hierarchy. Not a good look. Even if you manage to enter PC without snitching, you’ll be labeled a “check-in.” At some point you go back into general population. A check-in label follows you for the rest of your stay and opens you up to victimization. If faced with an unreasonable predator, the better option might be to handle things yourself.

What about prison rape? While common back in the day, it’s been largely eradicated through PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) and current prison culture. In most prisons, a booty bandit who targeted straight males would get run off the yard, i.e. smashed. Plus, with all the openly gay prisoners today, there’s no reason for a booty bandit to take it by force. Many prison organizations forbid their members from engaging in gay sex. Members who pursue down-low activity risk a death sentence. Overall, messing with “boys” (effeminate prison gays) is looked down on, and most prisoners avoid it. The small percentage who practice that lifestyle do so openly and without fear of reprisal. No one’s calling a three-hundred-pound wall of granite a f@g. Or his “boy.”

Many large corporations utilize prison slave labor. According to zio-globalist Harvard University, on average, prisoners get paid ninety-three cents per day. Juxtaposed to these slave wages are real-world prices for prison goods and services. US prisons outsource food services, phone, internet, healthcare, commissary, and pretty much everything else to private corporations. To maximize profits, these corporations price gouge prisoners and cut services. Prison food is often rotten and inedible. If you don’t want to lose weight, you’ll need to buy commissary food at market prices. But how can you do that earning ninety-three cents a day? You can’t. If fortunate, you might have family members who put money on your books (prison account). Otherwise, you’ll need to form a “prison hustle.” This could include offering cell cleaning and laundry services, working as a jailhouse lawyer or tattoo artist, running a poker table, brewing prison wine, or selling drugs. Predatory prisoners simply take stuff off weaker inmates.

Prison living conditions can be quite bad. Institutions often go on lockdown for months. That means sharing a bathroom-sized cell with another man 24/7 until the lock pops. To me, this constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine getting locked down with a cellie who snores like a Metallica concert bass amp. Or a psycho-maniac. As reported by the Miami Herald : “An inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution’s annex was able to strangle and mutilate his cellmate, gouge out his eyeballs, wrap his blood-soaked body in a sheet and walk into the prison’s chow hall wearing the dead inmate’s ear strung around his neck before officers learned anything was amiss.” Prisoners with psycho-maniac cellmates often develop severe PTSD from continuously sleeping with one eye open.

The lack of privacy in prison is obscene. That includes bathroom privacy. Full view-everything. Whoever invented this layout was a sick f*ck.

Prisoners are subject to regular “bend over, spread your cheeks and cough” level strip searches that would be humiliating if carried out by a licensed medical practitioner in a private patient room. Imagine performing this routine in front of snickering guards.

West Coast prisons practice racial segregation, i.e. races stay with their own. Fraternizing with a member of another race could get you smashed or stabbed. In West Coast prison politics, if a prisoner fights, it’s usually against someone from his race. If he gets victimized, it’s usually by an individual or group from his race. If two prisoners of different races have a beef, most times the shot callers of the respective races put the aggrieved parties into a cell and let them fight it out. After it’s over, the matter’s considered settled. If a prisoner goes into debt to someone from another race, members of the debtor’s race sometimes pay the debt and then smash or stab the debtor to avoid a race riot. An unsettled interracial beef can result in a race riot. If a race riot pops off, you’ll be expected to swing your lock-in-a-sock or shank for your race even if you have no involvement in the beef or know what it’s about. Anyone caught ducking out of a race riot gets smashed or stabbed by members of his race.

East Coast prisons are not racially segregated, although like in society, people tend to gravitate toward their own. However, strong bonds often develop between prisoners of different races.

In some institutions, prison organizations (gangs) control the internal politics. Higher-tier prison organizations resemble paramilitaries, as they possess a military top-down chain of command, written constitutions, well-trained soldiers with a high capacity for violence, mandatory boot camp level calisthenic regimens, large capital flows, and a reach that extends into the streets which includes access to serious arsenals. As per the Second Amendment, citizen militias still exist. Conversely, many prison organizations (gangs) lack structure and discipline and are more free-wheeling.

Prisoners join gangs for different reasons, e.g., protection, fellowship, thrills, resources. Joining a gang means following orders. This could include anything from stabbing a gang target to acting as a drug mule. Refusing an order could result in a death sentence. Like any major life decision, weigh the pros and cons carefully before signing on. As with civilian organizations, application standards vary. Some prison organizations want numbers, while others maintain a higher bar for entry. A case of “twenty-five pennies versus a quarter.”

Prison guards can be somewhat professional, corrupt, or sadistic. A nasty CO can make a prisoner’s life hell. Most COs just collect a paycheck and don’t care what happens to their charges. The Stanford Prison Experiment provides insight into guard psychology. Try to be respectful toward guards, but avoid fraternization, as this will cause some prisoners to label you a snitch.

It should be noted that the #MeToo psyop poses a unique danger to political prisoners. #MeToo started with Harvey Weinstein. I didn’t follow his case closely enough to comment on how far Weinstein’s actions went past the Hollywood casting couch quid pro quo that has existed since the days of silent movies and into the classic legal definition of rape. Weinstein was a connected insider. His circle of friends included Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey. He was a rabid Hollywood Zionist with Mossad ties. To his credit, Miramax offered up some decent movies in the 90s. Weinstein appeared to run with the “above the law” crowd, however, the donor class sometimes sacrifices one of its own when politically expedient. I don’t know why they chose Weinstein. Julian Assange became the first major “enemy of the state” #MeToo victim. Once the globalists had him in their clutches, his “rape” charges quickly and quietly vanished. Comedian-political commentator Russell Brand appears to be the latest #MeToo target.

#MeToo framed political prisoners entering prison with “bad paperwork” or sex offender status get greenlit. That means open season for extortion, smashing, and slashing. It could even mean a death sentence. Real rape is a terrible crime that traumatizes the female victim. However, from my viewpoint, throwing fake sex crime charges at an innocent man is an equal or worse crime. The Bible says – “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” It’s serious sh!t. Any woman or operative who participates in such a horrific charade deserves an appropriate response. If the Deep State #MeToo frameup trend continues. I respectfully suggest that the heads of convict-code based prison organizations (gangs) consider secondary in-house trials for “sex crime convicted” political prisoners to determine if the charges are real or state fabrications.

In summary, from my review of the data, best prison practices include:

  1. Mind your business aka “do your own time.” If you involve yourself, you’re involved, i.e., the violent predator who was the other guy’s problem becomes your problem. In a similar vein, never look into another prisoner’s cell when passing by it. Not only is that considered rude, but if he’s in the middle of hiding contraband and his cell gets searched later, guess who he’s blaming.
  2. Don’t snitch.
  3. Avoid gambling, borrowing, (hard) drugs, and “boys.”* (*No offense to gay people. It’s prison politics).
  4. Practice C&R (Courtesy and Respect). “Please, thank you, and excuse me” go a long way in civilian life, but even further in prison.
  5. Choose solid associates (“friends”). You’ll be judged by the company you keep. If your associate gets into a beef, you’ll be expected to back him up, and vice versa. Someone prone to drama could drag you in. If your associate borrows heavily and checks in or gets transferred, his debts could pass on to you.

For those facing potential incarceration for “hate speech,” “spreading misinformation,” questioning election results, posting offensive memes, attending protests, or similar crimes, I hope this article helps. If you need more data, there are informative YouTube channels hosted by ex-prisoners.

While prison seems to be the modality of choice, please note that the Deep State can always exercise the ultimate option to neutralize enemies. See Wikileaks DNC whistleblower Seth Rich. Or the quixotic veteran who believed in free and fair elections. Her name is Ashli Babbitt.

We live in a society run by criminals. Goldman Sachs stole way more money than John Dillinger, and the worst child killer pales in comparison to Madeleine Albright, who starved five hundred thousand Iraqi children to death and bragged about it on network television. The “rules” don’t apply to the donor class.

Outsourcing of jobs, endless war, corporate welfare, and banker theft increased poverty and raised crime levels. Formerly productive regions of the US became opioid/meth/crime/poverty zones. While prisons warehouse violent predators who pose a serious threat to public safety, it’s not uncommon for innocent poor people to take shorter sentence plea deals rather than risk going to trial with a checked-out public defender and potentially receiving a decades-long sentence. As America sinks further into third-worldism and despotism, former law-abiding citizens might need to go “Walter White” to pay medical bills, avoid homelessness, or practice basic civil rights.

Just like the Military Industrial Complex requires endless wars for its business model, the for-profit Prison Industrial Complex needs to fill beds. An influx of thought/political criminals into the system floats stocks. Not surprising that end-stage neoliberal capitalism America has the world’s highest incarceration rate.

For those who cheered Reagan-Clinton mandatory-minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug offenses while the CIA shipped in freight loads of coke and heroin to inner cities and the Sacklers drowned the heartland in a sea of opioids- congratulations, you’ve arrived at gulag nation. Welcome home son.

December 27, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Biden’s plan to ‘revive Palestinian Authority’ fizzles out: Report

The Cradle | December 26, 2023

The US government has run into a significant hurdle in its campaign to “revitalize” the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) as possible successors to Hamas in the Gaza Strip, failing to convince Israel to unblock funds necessary to prevent the PA from total collapse.

“Even if we agreed [to take over for Hamas in Gaza], how can we implement it? The policy of Israel is to weaken the authority, not strengthen it,” PA Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Abu Rudeineh told the Washington Post. “We cannot even pay the salaries of our soldiers, our employees,” he added.

Despite round-the-clock visits to the heavily fortified PA headquarters in Ramallah and meetings with Israeli authorities, US officials have made little progress in securing the release of millions in Palestinian tax money that Israel has blocked since 7 October.

Two months ago, the Israeli finance ministry – led by Jewish supremacist official Bezalel Smotrich – froze the transfer of tax revenues amounting to some $188 million monthly to the PA.

“The PA didn’t see fit to distance itself from these barbarian actions, and officials in the authority even expressed support for the awful massacre […] Furthermore, the PA is acting against Israel at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice,” Smotrich said on 30 October.

The tax revenues – known in Palestine as maqasa – are collected by the Israeli government on behalf of the PA on Palestinian imports and exports. Israel earns a commission of 3 percent of collected revenues.

On Friday, the European Commission said it was preparing a $130 million aid package to help plug the gap.

According to Sabri Saidam, a member of the central committee for the Fatah party and close adviser to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, plans for Palestinians to receive their tax revenue have “collapsed.”

Besides finding ways to avert the financial collapse of the PA, US officials have also been pushing for “changes and new faces in key positions” in a last-ditch effort to improve the public image of the deeply unpopular organization.

According to a recent poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 88 percent of Palestinians want Abbas to resign as PA President, up 10 points from three months ago.

Meanwhile, the popularity of Hamas has soared in the occupied West Bank, from 12 percent to 44 percent.

“It’s always this colonizing mentality, whereby, ‘We decide your leadership, we are the ones basically designing your strategy for the day after, we tell you how to live, we tell you how to breathe, and we tell you how to run your land,’” Saidam told the Washington Post.

The PA was established in 1994 based on the first Oslo Accords (1993) between Tel Aviv and the now-defunct Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It was initially established as a temporary governing body to lay the foundation for an independent Palestinian state.

However, after decades of corruption allegations, collaboration scandals, and a poor human rights record, the PA was in a state of “total inertia” before the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation unfolded on 7 October.

Complicating matters further for Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is staunchly opposed to a PA-controlled Gaza.

“Expectation that the Palestinian Authority will demilitarize Gaza is a pipe dream,” Netanyahu says in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on Monday.

“[The PA] has shown neither the capability nor the will to demilitarize Gaza,” the premier added, claiming that Ramallah “currently funds and glorifies terrorism […] and educates Palestinian children to seek the destruction of Israel.”

“For the foreseeable future, Israel will have to retain overriding security responsibility over Gaza,” Netanyahu stressed.

December 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian opposition politician jailed for five years

RT | December 26, 2023

A court in Ukraine has sentenced a member of a banned opposition party to five years behind bars for expressing pro-Russian views in private conversations. The man, whose name has not been revealed, had served on the Cherkasy City Council before becoming an aide to an MP in the country’s parliament.

In March 2022, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine suspended the activities of the Opposition Platform – For Life political party. The authorities accused the party of operating in the interest of Moscow. It was eventually banned by a court ruling several months later.

In a message on its Telegram channel on Monday, Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General revealed that the defendant was found “guilty of justifying the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and glorifying its participants.”

According to the prosecutors, the former municipal council member aired his pro-Russian views “in conversations with his close relatives and acquaintances.” The man is said to have extolled Russia’s actions in Ukraine as well as President Vladimir Putin personally.

Officials quoted the defendant as saying: “To Russia’s victory on our long-suffering Ukrainian soil! It needs to be cleansed.”

Earlier, the Office of the Prosecutor General reported levelling similar charges against a 62-year-old woman, who is also from the city of Cherkasy in Central Ukraine. The authorities said they believed she had justified Russia’s actions and compared the Ukrainian government to the Nazis in a phone conversation with her friend.

In 2020, criminal charges of high treason were filed against the former leader of the Opposition Platform – For Life, Viktor Medvedchuk, over his visit to Moscow, where he had met with top Russian officials. Sometime later, the politician was put under house arrest. However, in late February 2022, around the time Russia launched its military action against its neighbor, Medvedchuk absconded. He was recaptured several months later, and handed over to Moscow as part of a prisoner swap deal last September.

The exiled opposition figure has continued to criticize President Vladimir Zelensky’s administration. Earlier this month, Medvedchuk opined that the current leadership in Kiev has “turned out to be not just bad negotiators, but criminal amateurs.” He also accused the Ukrainian head of state of selling “out [Ukrainians] for cannon fodder” after being promised Western aid.

The politician claimed that President Zelensky is averse to the idea of peace negotiations with Moscow because such talks would prove to be a “sentence for Zelensky, not only political, but also criminal,” with Ukrainians likely to start asking him tough questions.

December 26, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Author of Study Used to Vilify Unvaxed Had Ties to Pfizer

New Peer-Reviewed Research Shows Why the Study Was Flawed

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 22, 2023

During the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians, scientists and media organizations vilified unvaccinated people, blaming them for prolonging the pandemic and advocating policies that barred “the unvaccinated” from public venues, businesses and their own workplaces.

But a peer-reviewed study published last week in Cureus shows that a key April 2022 study by Fisman et al. — used to justify draconian policies segregating the unvaccinated — was based on the application of flawed mathematical risk models that offer no scientific backing for such policies.

Dr. David Fisman, a University of Toronto epidemiologist was the lead author of the April 2022 study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), which the authors said showed that unvaccinated people posed a disproportionate risk to vaccinated people.

Fisman has worked as an adviser to vaccine makers Pfizer, Seqirus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Pasteur. He also advised the Canadian government on its COVID-19 policies and recently was tapped to head up the University of Toronto’s new Institute for Pandemics.

Fisman told reporters the key message of the study was that the choice to get vaccinated is not merely personal because if you choose to be unvaccinated, you are “creating risk for those around you.”

The press ran with it.

Headlines like Salon’s, “Merely hanging out with unvaccinated puts the vaccinated at higher risk: study,” Forbes’ “Study Shows Unvaccinated People Are At Increased Risk Of Infecting The Vaccinated” or Medscape’sMy Choice? Unvaccinated Pose Outsize Risk to Vaccinated” proliferated in more than 100 outlets.

The Canadian Parliament used the paper to promote restrictions for unvaccinated people.

However, in the new study published last week, Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., and Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., show that Fisman’s “susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR)” model, used to draw his conclusions, had a glaring flaw in one of its key parameters — contact frequency.

When they adjusted that parameter to account for real-world data, the model produced a variety of contradictory outcomes, including one showing that segregating unvaccinated people can increase the epidemic severity among the vaccinated — the exact opposite of what Fisman et al. purported to show

Hickey and Rancourt, researchers at Canada’s Correlation: Research in the Public Interest, concluded that without reliable empirical data to inform such SIR models, the models are “intrinsically limited” and should not be used as a basis for policy.

The Canadian researchers attempted to publish their paper in CMAJ, where Fisman had published his original study, but the editor — a collaborator of Fisman’s — refused even to review it.

The open-access version of CMAJ also declined to publish the article even after it received favorable peer reviews.

In a letter sent, with supporting documentation, to the CMAJ and the Canadian Medical Association, Hickey and Rancourt recounted the “tedious saga” whereby the journal editors “concocted a multitude of ancillary and unnecessary objections, apparently intended to be insurmountable barriers” to publishing their study.

They later published the study in the peer-reviewed journal Cureus.

Rancourt tweeted a link to the study results along with a montage of pandemic-era media clips scapegoating unvaccinated people.

‘A policy based on nothing’

SIR models were commonly used as the basis for pandemic policies, often with fatal flaws research has since shown.

Fisman et al. designed their study to measure the impacts of segregating two groups — vaccinated and unvaccinated people — applying a SIR model to predict whether the unvaccinated pose an undue risk to the vaccinated during a severe acute respiratory viral outbreak, based on variable degrees of mixing among the groups.

However the model, Hickey and Rancourt wrote, failed to consider the impacts of that segregation on “contact frequencies,” a key parameter in predicting epidemic outcomes.

Instead, it assumed contact frequencies among the majority (vaccinated) and socially excluded (unvaccinated) groups would be equal and constant, which “is not realistic,” Hickey told The Defender.

In other words, the model assumed the two groups would be separated, yet living the same parallel existence — socializing, working, shopping and coming into contact with others in exactly the same ways.

But in the real world, segregation meant the unvaccinated were barred from many public places, so their contact frequencies were severely curtailed.

Hickey and Rancourt implemented the SIR model again, testing for a degree of segregation that ranged from zero to complete segregation and allowing the contact frequencies for individuals in the two groups to vary with the degree of segregation.

When they ran the model using the more realistic estimation of how different segregation policies might generate different contact frequencies among the two groups, “we found the results are all over the map,” Hickey said.

By segregating unvaccinated people from the vaccinated majority, he said, “You can have an increase in the attack rate among vaccinated people or you can have a decrease.”

“Negative epidemiological consequences can occur for either segregated group, irrespective of the deleterious health impacts of the policies themselves,” they wrote.

Hickey said the variable outcomes were very sensitive to the values of the parameters in the model, namely infectious contact frequency.

But he said, in the real world there are no reliable measures for contact frequency, and without reliable measures for model inputs, the model is essentially meaningless.

They concluded that the degree of uncertainty is so high in such SIR models that they cannot reasonably inform policy decisions.

“It’s a policy based on nothing basically,” Hickey said.

“We cannot recommend that SIR modelling be used to motivate or justify segregation policies regarding viral respiratory diseases, in the present state of knowledge,” the study concluded.

‘Fisman’s Fraud’ 

Modeling had a major impact on the pandemic response in Canada and globally, statistician Regina Watteel, Ph.D., who chronicled the impact of the Fisman paper in her book “Fisman’s Fraud: the Rise of Canadian Hate Science,” told The Defender.

As a key figure in modeling the pandemic in Canada, Fisman “was involved in Canada’s pandemic response at all levels,” she said.

He was also influential as a public figure, making numerous disparaging comments about “anti-vaxxers” from early on and advocating policies like vaccine passports and school closures long before he received a major grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for his SIR modeling study.

Fisman was open in interviews about the fact that the point of the 2022 study was to “undermine the notion that vaccine choice was best left to the individual,” Watteel said.

The 2022 modeling paper didn’t just present mathematical results, the authors also made political claims.

The paper stated:

“The choice of some individuals to refuse vaccination is likely to affect the health and safety of vaccinated people in a manner disproportionate to the fraction of unvaccinated people in the population.

“Risk among unvaccinated people cannot be considered self-regarding, and considerations around equity and justice for people who do choose to be vaccinated, as well as those who choose not to be, need to be considered in the formulation of vaccination policy.”

Despite serious concerns raised by numerous researchers in the CMAJ article’s response section, the mainstream international press widely promoted the article as proof the unvaccinated posed a danger to the vaccinated.

Fisman publicly advocated for vaccine mandates and passports and told reporters the impetus behind the modeling study was not a scientific question of the effects of segregation on infection rates, but the political question of, “What are the rights of vaccinated people to be protected from unvaccinated people?”

A few days after the study was published, the parliamentary secretary to the Ontario Ministry of Health used the study to defend proposed travel restrictions, Watteel showed in her book.

As a result, she wrote, it “has generated a massive trail of misinformation.”

Watteel concurred that Fisman et al.’s study was based on bad modeling. She added that by omitting publicly available current data that contradicted the data they presented in the article, the study was actually “fraudulent.”

Fisman et al. published the paper during the so-called Omicron surge, which was dominated by infections among the fully vaccinated. By spring 2022, people who were boosted had disproportionately more infections than others, according to data on the government of Ontario COVID-19 website and reproduced in Watteel’s book.

However, none of that publicly available data was included in the study.

Instead, Watteel wrote:

“Fisman et al. concocted a model to generate the results they wanted, completely omitting any reference to readily available real-world data that contradicted their results (falsification). They went on to state the contrived results as facts (data fabrication) and then proceeded to inform public policy based on the fabricated results.

“The researchers continued to push the false narrative long after numerous scientists rebuked the findings and provided evidence of the findings’ falsity. This indicates a willful misrepresentation and misinterpretation of research findings.”

CAMJ editor, Fisman colleague, blocks review of Correlation article

Hickey told The Defender when they submitted their paper critiquing SIR models like Fisman’s to CAMJ in August 2022, editor Matthew Stanbrook, M.D., Ph.D. — who also works at the University of Toronto and has collaborated with Fisman on academic articles, grants and courses — rejected the article without even sending it for peer review.

Hickey and Rancourt appealed the decision and requested Stanbrook recuse himself. The journal suggested they resubmit their study to the open-access version of CAMJ, which they did. It was rejected without going through peer review.

They appealed that decision and the paper was sent for review. A few months later, they received two positive reviews with requested corrections. They responded to the reviews and made corrections to the paper, expecting publication.

The journal then informed them there had been a “technical error” and the journal — which is supposed to have an entirely transparent peer-review process — had failed to send them concerns from anonymous internal editors and an anonymous statistician.

Hickey told The Defender :

“It is their policy that the reviewers’ names are public and that the review reports and the revision, like the responses by the author, all that stuff is public. That’s the policy. There’s no escaping that.

“And yet what do they do? They use anonymous internal people to put barriers up and make pretexts to not publish even in the face of positive reviews.”

Those anonymous comments included a suggestion that they should use Fisman’s flawed mathematical analysis, Hickey said. The authors responded to those comments in what they have now also posted on their website as a stand-alone article.

Months later, they requested an update on the journal’s plans for the article and were informed that the journal decided the article would not be suitable for its audience and suggested they instead publish in a modeling journal.

All of their collected critiques of Fisman’s 2022 paper are also collected on the Correlation website.


Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

December 23, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Canadians supporting Palestine face job loss, condemnation

MEMO | December 22, 2023

Expressing support for Palestinians in the ongoing conflict in Gaza risks Canadians being fired, suspended from their jobs and calls not to be hired, the country’s public broadcaster reported on Friday, reports Anadolu Agency.

It is a development in other countries, including the US and Europe, and affects various employment fields, such as the service sector, education, health care, the law and media. “I can tell you personally, in the last month and a half, I’ve probably spoken with someone at least once a day [about this],” Jackie Esmonde, a labour lawyer at the Toronto-based firm Cavalluzzo Law, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). “They’re not always cases that we take on, but we do have eight to 10 cases that we’re actively working on at the moment.”

She said these are not cases of hate speech or support for terrorism.

In November, the University of Ottawa suspended Dr Yipeng Ge after a social media post that said: “From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The university interpreted this to mean the “ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from Israel.”

Others have suffered job suspensions for posts that featured the words “genocide” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s actions.

In November, 650 lawyers, law students and professors from across Canada published an open letter that says there has been a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression since the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict on October 7.

Meanwhile, lawyers interviewed by the CBC said they were not aware of anyone facing consequences for social media posts supporting Israel.

And two employees at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies – a non-profit human rights organization that fosters antisemitism education – told the CBC that teachers at the centre have been told to report students who make statements critical of Israel.

December 23, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Rumble blocks Brazil

RT | December 22, 2023

The video sharing service Rumble announced on Friday that it would disable access to all users from Brazil pending its legal challenge of the Brazilian court order to censor certain creators.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski revealed the move in a post on X (formerly Twitter), noting that the court orders clashed with the company’s mission to “restore a free and open Internet.”

“Users with unpopular views are free to access our platform on the same terms as our millions of other users,” Pavlovski wrote. “Accordingly, we have decided to disable access to Rumble for users in Brazil while we challenge the legality of the Brazilian courts’ demands.”

Brazilians who lost their access to Rumble content have only their courts to blame, he added, noting that he hoped the judges would reconsider their decision so that the service could be restored soon.

“I will not be bullied by foreign government demands to censor Rumble creators.”

In a follow-up post, Pavlovski noted that Rumble was “the only company at our scale that holds the line for free speech and American values,” and that he hoped some day other Big Tech companies would do the same. “I will continue to lead by example until that day arrives,” he added.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and hosts the ‘System Update’ show on Rumble, noted that the Brazilian Supreme Court is “consumed with censoring political speech,” to the point that it banned platforms such as Telegram and WhatsApp for failing to immediately obey their censorship orders.

This is the second time Rumble has suspended service in a country over a censorship row. In November 2022, Pavlovski defied France’s orders to censor certain Russian-language outlets, citing the company’s free speech mission.

Pavlovski, a Canadian tech entrepreneur, founded Rumble in 2013 after seeing YouTube giving priority to influencers after getting acquired by the search engine giant Google. The platform grew in popularity starting in 2020, after a mass purge of dissident voices by Silicon Valley, and continued in 2021 with the influx of US conservatives censored elsewhere.

December 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

How the cabal’s false narratives are used to gain their true objectives

BY MERYL NASS | DECEMBER 21, 2023

One Health issues a booklet and finally, kinda, sorta tells us what One Health is about.

A guide to implementing the One Health Joint Plan of Action at national level

See page 30:

I do the decoding [italics ].

  1. “Provide adequate guidance and tools for the effective implementation of One Health approaches to promote the health of humans, animals, plants and ecosystems and to prevent and manage risks at the human–animal–plant–environment interface.”

This drills into the reader’s brain the idea that the human-animal or human-environment interface is a dangerous place to be, that the risks must be acknowledged, and major efforts made to manage them. Note the absence of evidence supporting the assertion that major risk exist when humans are exposed to animals and nature.

  1. Reduce the risk and minimize local and global impacts of zoonotic epidemics and pandemics by understanding the linkages and drivers of emergence and spillover, adopting upstream prevention and strengthening One Health surveillance, early warning and response systems.

The concept that pandemics are caused by “spillover” from animals is asserted, as is the very shaky idea that one can prevent and identify pandemics early using “surveillance” “warning and response systems”—which tellingly are never defined in any detail since no methods have ever worked.

  1. Reduce the burden of endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases by supporting countries in implementing community-centric, risk-based solutions, strengthening policy and legal frameworks from the local to the global level and across sectors, and increasing political commitment and investment.

Blather about helping developing nations without saying anything specific, except that they need to strengthen “policy and legal frameworks”—such as implementing legislation for authorization of unlicensed, liability-free drugs and vaccines? They need more political commitment—commitment to what, exactly, is ominously left unsaid. And naturally more investment (and commissions) are needed.

  1. Promote awareness, policy changes and action coordination among stakeholders to ensure that humans, animals and ecosystems achieve health and remain healthy in their interactions with and along the food supply chain.

The ominous missing information about the policy changes and action desired should make you very nervous. Now the “food supply chain” is invoked, turning food and the methods by which it travels from farm to kitchen fair game for the purveyors of One Health.

  1. Take joint action to preserve antimicrobial efficacy and ensure sustainable and equitable access to antimicrobials for responsible and prudent use in human, animal and plant health.

It sounds like there is a plan to withhold antibiotics from us in the name of preserving their efficacy. Pharmacists were made to monitor azithromycin use as well as hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine and mefloquine use during the COVID time. Bacterial pneumonias were untreated until the victim’s lips turned blue. Expect more of this.

  1. Protect and restore biodiversity, prevent the degradation of ecosystems and the wider environment to jointly support the health of people, animals, plants and ecosystems, underpinning sustainable development.

This will be the justification to move people off the land in areas where species are said to be threatened. It may also lead to enforced changes in land use, based on my earlier readings of Daszak, Fauci and the Lancet One Health commission. And of course we must give up our simple pleasures in the name of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Who voted for them, and why are we being frog-marched into a SDG future, even though we don’t know where it is leading?

_________________

 

The cabal that delivered COVID and its pandemic response plan to us wants to solve the rest of the world’s problems for us, too. Will YOU let them?

December 22, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

UK Parliament debates IHR amendments

If sovereignty is knowingly and deceitfully forfeited by government there are specific laws for dealing with that, says Andrew Bridgen

By Rhoda Wilson – The Exposé – December 20, 2023

On Monday, the UK House of Commons debated the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHR”).

The debate was held in response to a petition to the UK Parliament which gained more than the required number of signatures. In yet another brilliant speech, Andrew Bridgen MP left no stone unturned. A few other Members of Parliament (“MPs) didn’t hold back either.

The first to speak was Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. He summed up the problem both with the WHO’s two proposed instruments – the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty or Accord – and the UK Parliament’s mindset regarding concerns raised about them.

“In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall … I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an ‘overreaction and hysteria’. It is clear that this is – quite rightly, in my opinion – an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions,” Mr. Davies said.

“We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies,” he said. “What is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty … We are talking about a top-down approach to global public health hardwired into international law.”

“Let us not forget that the director-general is appointed by an opaque, non-democratic process – and I think that is being rather generous,” he added.

Andrew Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, took the floor next. “I [ ] thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today,” he began.

“It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel.”

Why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty? Mr. Bridgen asked the House noting that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ statements that “no country will cede any sovereignty to WHO” are unequivocally, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to.

Mr. Bridgen reminded the House that Tedros, as with all WHO officials, is unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying and immune from prosecution due to diplomatic immunity.

The intent of the text of the IHR amendments and Pandemic Accord is clear: WHO’s proposed instruments transfer decision-making power to WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, decision-making that is currently vested in nations and individuals. “The WHO director-general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law,” Mr. Bridgen said.

“Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.”

Later in his speech, Mr. Bridgen said that WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public to increase the probability of acceptance.

Mr. Bridgen then referred to the dubious method by which the World Health Assembly adopted amendments to the IHR in April 2022.

“Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen quoted from article 18 of the IHR which details specific examples of measures that are currently non-binding and WHO can recommend.

“When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates -“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.  However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the UDHR.” Mr. Bridgen said.

Mr. Bridgen explained how the current recommendations will be changed into requirements through three mechanisms:

“The first is the removal of the term “non-binding” … Second is the insertion … [of] the phrase that ‘Member States’ will ‘undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations’ … Thirdly … ‘State Parties’ undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction.”

Mr. Bridgen explained that “non-state actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. “In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director-general declares a public health emergency of international concern,” he said.

Mr. Bridgen also pointed out that the IHR also allows WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country. “That is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses,” he said.

He called out WHO’s desire to limit freedom of speech to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” This clashes with the UDHR, Mr. Bridgen said.

“Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity.” No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.”

Mr. Bridgen mentioned the potential for human rights abuses by WHO and its allies coercing populations to take experimental vaccines or drugs:

“If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation.”

The proposed pandemic agreement, Mr. Bridgen said, will set humanity into a new era that is organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times.

“The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened,” he said, “but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies.”

Mr. Bridgen followed this by voicing a thought that has been on many of our minds in recent years:

“If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice.”

You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s speech in parliament below and read a transcript of it in the Hansard HERE.

Andrew Bridgen: International Health Regulations Amendments Debate in Westminster Hall, 19 December 2023 (24 mins)

John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, agreed.  “I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners,” he said. “It would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.”

“Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic,” Mr. Redwood said. “We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.”

“We do not want an international body saying, ‘There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it’ … we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate.”

Mark Francis, MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, also voiced his concerns about amendments to the IHR. “Not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic,” he said.

“The proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.”

Danny Kruger, MP for Devizes, began by noting that it was very worrying that so few MPs were present at the debate. “Significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?” he asked. And reiterated the points already made.

He emphasised the provision in the proposed regulations that WHO would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. After recalling one or two erroneous statements made by WHO in response to the covid pandemic, Mr. Kruger said:

“This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.

“We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our government’s role.”

Sir Christopher Chope, MP for Christchurch, said: “Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry … it is very difficult to get them back.”

He pointed to an insidious development, following a recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary international law.” “That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not,” he said.

Mr. Francis interjected and said: “For the avoidance of any doubt … none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – we might call it Wexit.”  To which Mr. Davies responded, “Yet.” [Attaboy Mr Davies!]

“We do not want to withdraw,” Sir Christopher said, “there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information.”

Sir Christopher reminded the House about WHO’s war on ivermectin. “Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin – it was not the only such drug – could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19,” he said.

“[The campaign against ivermectin] was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it,” he added.

“I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political.”

After noting that SlovakiaEstonia and New Zealand had come out publicly with their scepticism about WHO’s process, Sir Christopher said:

“I hope that our government will now say, ‘By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives’.”

You can read the full transcript for the 3-hour debate HERE and watch the full debate on Parliament TV HERE.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

The Antisemitic Moment

Maligning critics by Jewish groups to “protect” Israel only damages their credibility

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • DECEMBER 21, 2023

In a 2002 interview the former Israeli government minister Shulamit Aloni was asked by Amy Goodman: “Often when there is dissent expressed in the United States against policies of the Israeli government, people here are called antisemitic. What is your response to that as an Israeli Jew?” Shulamit Aloni replied “Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country [the US] people are criticizing Israel, then they are antisemitic.” She added that there is an “Israel, my country right or wrong” attitude and “they’re not ready to hear criticism.” Antisemitism, the Holocaust and “the suffering of the Jewish people” are exploited to “justify everything we do to the Palestinians.”

Currently Israel is involved in a conflict with Hamas in Gaza that it has described as a “war” though the disparity in force levels involving a country with a modern fully equipped army, navy and air force versus something more like a militia armed with small arms and home-made rockets suggest that a different label might be more appropriate. The fighting has been constant apart from a six day pause to exchange hostages and prisoners and promises to continue into the New Year, and possibly much longer, due to the difficulty in engaging in anything like conventional warfare in a bombed out and devastated urban environment that favors the defense.

Israeli extreme brutality has been on display for all the world to see. Last week, Israeli soldiers shot dead three Jewish hostages who had escaped from their Hamas captors under cover of an Israeli bombardment. The hostages took most of their clothes off so it could be clearly seen that they were unarmed and they were carrying a white flag with their hands in the air, but the soldiers reacted by shooting two of them immediately. The third took cover in a building while calling for help in Hebrew, but he too was pursued and killed. In another incident two Catholic women, mother and daughter, taking shelter in Gaza’s only Catholic church were targeted and shot by Israeli snipers. This produced a rebuke from the Pope.

However it turns out, the conflict in Gaza will be Israel’s longest “war” by far since the creation of the country in 1948. Israel’s intention is to force the Gazans to leave whether by forced resettlement in neighboring countries, in Europe or in the United States, or by killing them all. The deputy mayor of Jerusalem has recently labeled the Palestinians “subhumans” and has recommended rounding them up and burying them alive. He is not alone in that viewpoint and, at a minimum, many government ministers believe that the best outcome of the Palestinian problem is to get rid of the Palestinians in Gaza and also on the West Bank completely, whatever that takes, to establish once and for all “Eretz” or Greater Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and possibly even expanding into southern Lebanon and Egypt’s Sinai.

Israeli willingness to use bombs, starvation and even disease against the Palestinians in what is now being frequently referred to as a genocide has meant that the Jewish state’s list of friends around the world has shrunk dramatically and is limited to several European states and the US under self-declared Zionist President Joe Biden. A UN Security Council motion calling for a ceasefire was blocked by a US veto even though the ten other council members voted for it with one abstention by the UK. A subsequent call for a ceasefire, ignored by Israel, obtained 153 “Yes” votes in the UN General Assembly against 10 “Nos” two of which were Israel and the United States plus US “freely associated” micro-states Micronesia and Palau which always align with Washington. And even in those mostly European countries nominally supporting Israel’s attacks in Gaza, there have been large demonstrations supporting the Palestinians. As the death toll among civilians approaches and almost certainly has already exceeded 20,000, many governments have begun to hedge their bets and wobble in their assertions that “Israel has a right to defend itself.” Defense does not apparently include targeting hospitals, schools, churches and apartment buildings full of fearful civilians seeking shelter from the explosions. Even Joe Biden is calling for restraint in the “indiscriminate” bombing though he is also expediting providing the Israelis with more bombs to do the killing.

As the crisis in Gaza worsened, the UN responded with yet another Security Council resolution, which was introduced by the United Arab Emirates on December 18th. The vote was subsequently delayed three times until the 21st primarily to allow time for debate over the exact wording so as to make it acceptable to the United States in order to avoid another veto by Washington. Cynics have been quick to observe quite plausibly that the Biden Administration is seeking to vote in favor of or abstain on a document that is completely toothless, allowing Israel to do whatever it wants, as is usually the case. The vote on “urgent humanitarian pauses” was expected on Thursday December 21st, but the US again forced a delay for further discussion after aligning its position with that of Israel and claiming, falsely, that UN involvement in the monitoring of assistance would actually slow down relief efforts.

Israel had previously insisted, with US support, that UN direct involvement in monitoring and coordinating the massive humanitarian effort needed to help the Gazans should not be permitted. Israel demanded that only it should be responsible for inspecting incoming goods for “threats,” which, as the Jewish state is a party to the conflict, will itself inevitably and intentionally slow down assistance dramatically and will result in many unnecessary deaths. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also objected to the possibility that some wording in the resolution might suggest transformation of the “pause” into a lengthy ceasefire rather than a temporary “suspension” of hostilities with fighting resuming after a short period. Netanyahu has vowed that the military action will continue until all Hamas leaders and followers have surrendered or are dead. He is also demanding the immediate release of all Israeli hostages as a sine qua non for further deliberations on what might come next.

More important to Americans than dishonest parliamentary maneuvers at the UN should be the fact that defending Israel has meant that there is underway a wholesale assault on the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights relating to freedom of speech and association. The attacks are being conducted by the Israeli Lobby and its assets and allies in both of the major political parties, the mainstream news media, Zionist-dominated American social media, and the American National Security apparatus. This has distorted what has happened in Gaza and why by turning the narrative of the conflict into a totally false bit of propaganda claiming alleged Arab terrorism and irredentism directed against the poor Jewish Israelis, who are once again serving as the featured victims. In America, universities are being described as hotbeds of surging antisemitism because students are protesting against Israel’s ethnic cleansing in Gaza while the heavily Jewish-influenced media and Jewish billionaires are working overtime to do whatever it takes to block any and all such criticism. Interestingly, the drive to ban or shut down protests and gatherings has had some major success directed against Arab or Muslim groups in a number of states with no Jewish groups on campus or in the community being interfered with in spite of their often robust support of Israel’s killing spree in Gaza.

The interference of Israel in both American domestic and foreign politics will only get worse in the upcoming year due to national elections. A number of Jewish groups are currently raising money and organizing to go after critics of Israel more aggressively, most particularly the few progressives in the Democratic Party who have spoken up about the genocide of the Palestinians that is taking place. Since the Israel Lobby already controls the White House, its aim is to make the Congress a 100% loyal cheerleader and protector of Israel and all its works, to include the continuing flow of billions of taxpayer dollars annually. Some major American Jewish organizations have, for example, just launched “The 10/7 Project” which will feature centralized communications to promote bipartisan support of Israel. “The 10/7 Project” will be sponsored and managed by the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish Federations of North America, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Ted Deutch, CEO of the American Jewish committee explained “The 10/7 Project’s” purpose, saying that “Since October 7, there has been a concerted and consistent effort from Israel’s enemies to draw a false and dangerous equivalence between Hamas’ deadly rampage to destroy the Jewish state and Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorists. ‘The 10/7 Project’ will be a trusted and timely source of accurate information to set the record straight and combat false narratives perpetuated by Hamas terrorists and their anti-Israel allies… At this critical juncture, it is imperative that we separate fact from fiction regarding America’s most important Middle East ally and remind people that the vast majority of Americans understand that Hamas is our common enemy.”

What Deutch is really saying between the lies and misinformation is that there will be a well-funded and staffed effort to stifle criticism of Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinians using a narrative that portrays the Israelis as victims of Arab terror, an assertion which might well be described as Zionist propaganda and fact twisting. The attacks on free speech at universities will definitely be on the agenda, in a campaign that started several months ago, when students at a number of public and private universities began protesting over Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilians, leading to a death toll that is almost certainly currently approaching or exceeding 20,000 when all the corpses are dug up from the rubble of bombed buildings.

As the anti-Palestinian narrative took shape in political, media and Zionist circles, it adopted a familiar line, which goes something like this though with slight adjustments to reach target audiences: Israel is the Jewish state. If you criticize the Jewish state and/or Zionism you are therefore by the definition accepted by the US government State Department Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism an antisemite. Antisemitism is a “hate crime” since it is by the same logic based on hatred of Jews. If you advocate or argue for any Palestinian group like Hamas, which the US government has conveniently labeled “terrorist” even though it has never threatened Americans, you are providing “material assistance to terrorism” which is a crime for which you can be fined or imprisoned. The end result is that Israel, which is immune from the consequences of its own actions internationally, also increasingly cannot be criticized at all without serious consequences for the critic, which have included posting the names of protesting students on lists of alleged antisemites so they will be unable to find work after they graduate. In other words, freedom of speech in the United States and also in some European countries including France and Germany only exists, insofar as it does, if you are not disparaging Israel or even its friends due to their easily demonstrable “war criminal” behavior.

Some of those consequences of not rolling over for the Israel Lobby were experienced recently by three presidents of prominent American universities, responding to a congressional December 7th grilling that was set up to address concerns over allegations that colleges are hotbeds of antisemitism and are responsible for major increases in incidents targeting Jews. The presidents of the University of Pennsylvania Liz Magill, Harvard Claudine Gay and MIT Sally Kornbluth were grilled by Congress but were afterwards trashed because they were unwilling to agree with the congressional interrogators that Jews were being terrorized on campus, observing that words must have a physically threatening or harassing “context” if they are to be banned or blocked.

The responses of the three women suggesting that speech should remain free on campus were found to be unacceptable by Congress and the largely Zionist media. Magill has since resigned, joined by the chairman of the university board of trustees Scott Bok, who was immediately replaced by Julie Beren Platt, head of the Jewish Federations of North America, who has been named interim board chair. But politicians joined by prominent commentators and philanthropists still continue to call for the others to resign as well, though Harvard’s Gay has received a vote of confidence from her board and also from faculty and students. Many major Jewish donors have coupled those “calls” with threats that their multi-million dollar gifts would be withdrawn if the presidents stay on. In one example, Penn lost a $100 million donation from Ross Stevens, who pulled it after the hearing. Those seeking to punish appear to be undeterred by the fact that their actions have already sparked discussions about unacceptable levels of Jewish power, often including the observation how promise of money or denying it is used as an instrument to obtain what Israel and its Lobby want.

There is a certain irony in the allegations since Jews in America are the wealthiest, best educated, most politically powerful, most prestigiously employed and most protected by Homeland Security of all ethno-religious demographics. And there is not much real evidence that Jews are in any way increasingly “victims” in the United States or in Europe. The antisemitic incidents that are “surging” are frequently based on criticisms of what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians and often consist of a Jewish college student being offended or annoyed by a poster or a speaker criticizing Israeli behavior. Instances of actual physical confrontation are few and far between and are immediately reported in the accommodating mainstream media to heighten the sense that Jews in America and even worldwide are threatened. Certain groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are heavily into the promotion of the narrative of Jew hatred as it is in their bottom line to do so given their donor base which likes to hear exactly that.

In other words, what one reads and hears about “surging antisemitism” is largely a contrivance to obtain political and economic benefits as well as a free pass on bad behavior both by Israel and domestically that might not otherwise be forthcoming. And it should be noted in passing that the Israel Lobby groups have somehow avoided registering with the Department of Justice, as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, which would require them to maintain transparency over their funding and political activity. The last American president who tried to register what became the Israel Lobby and also sought to stop Israel’s illegal secret nuclear weapons program was John F. Kennedy. Some suspect that Israeli interests might have played a part in his assassination as a result.

Some congressmen have been particularly incensed by student pro-Palestinian demonstrators chanting “Intifada” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” interpreting both expressions being calls for the destruction of Israel, which they are not. Intifada is “shaking off” in Arabic and is a call for liberating the Palestinian people and their land from the Israeli tyranny. The “river to sea” is somewhat similar, a call for a Palestinian state with actual sovereignty and neither is an explicit call for killing Israelis or Jews. They might be considered generic cries for freedom.

But the real mystery in this is why is it happening at all? Jews are supposed to be smart but is it smart to reveal how much power you have, particularly when you are prepared to wield it ruthlessly to suppress people who just might begin to wonder if there is something going on that is being deliberately contrived to benefit a tiny percentage of the US population and a foreign government? And if that kind of thinking catches on, which I believe it already has, there might be serious discussions of ways to counter the efforts to limit free speech and association for citizens who are not comfortable with the way Israel behaves and the way the US Israel Lobby silences critics. Instead of trying to criminalize what people are thinking, wouldn’t it be smarter and even more ethical for American Jews to call on Israel to stop the killing and work out some formula that allows the Palestinians at least a modicum of self-government and freedom? That would seem to make sense and many Jews in the US are actually making that argument. The problem is to also convince the hard core and well financed Jewish groups that support Israel no matter who it has to kill that learning to live together with equal rights is the way to go. And then we must convince the know nothings in the Biden Administration and idiots in Congress like Senator Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio…

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bahrain jails dissident for blasting Manama’s role in US-led anti-Yemen coalition

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67)
Press TV | December 21, 2023

Bahraini authorities have ordered the seven-day detention of a leading opposition figure after he denounced the Al Khalifah regime’s participation in the US-led coalition against Yemen in the Red Sea.

Bahrain’s office of public prosecution ordered Ebrahim Sharif’s detention pending investigation for “spreading false news during wartime,” his family and lawyer said on Thursday.

Sharif, who heads the Wa’ad organization, in a series of posts criticized authorities in Manama for joining the coalition “without any consideration of the position of the Bahraini people who strongly support our besieged Palestinian people in Gaza.”

He was arrested on Wednesday. When asked about his case, the Bahraini government said “an individual” was being held for “allegedly supporting a proscribed terrorist organization.”

The charge against Sharif, a pro-democracy campaigner, can hold a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

Bahrain is the only state in the Persian Gulf region that has joined the US-led coalition established this week in response to Yemeni attacks on ships bound to the occupied Palestinian territories in the Red Sea.

Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at the UK-based Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), said the Bahraini regime “wants to make an example of Sharif who is not alone in his criticism of Bahrain’s decision to the join the Americans.”

“Failure of the US administration to publicly denounce his arrest and push for his immediate release gives the green light to the Bahrain government to continue his detention,” Alwadaei said.

The Pentagon has announced a military coalition of 10 countries, including Britain and Spain, to counter the Yemeni forces that targeted ships bound for Israel in solidarity with the people of Gaza.

A series of strikes attributed to the Yemeni forces have been conducted in solidarity with the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip. Yemen has already warned it will prevent the passage of all ships in the Red Sea bound to the occupied territories.

The leader of Yemen’s Ansarullah movement said in a televised speech broadcast live Wednesday that the armed forces will not hesitate to target US military warships in the Red Sea if Washington and its allies carry out military strikes against Yemen.

Bahrain’s main opposition group al-Wefaq National Islamic Society recently denounced human rights violations in the country.

Al-Wefaq has denounced Manama’s normalization of relations with Israel as “a crime.”

The opposition party has underlined that the normalization is in flagrant contradiction to Bahrain’s history and Islamic identity.

Bahrain and the Israeli regime established diplomatic relations in 2020 as part of the United States-brokered Abraham Accords.

Last month, the deputy speaker of Bahrain’s National Assembly said members of the legislative body were pressing to reverse the normalization following the regime’s devastating war in Gaza.

Abdulnabi Salman said Bahraini lawmakers were demanding an end to diplomatic relations with Israel.

The Persian Gulf country has witnessed numerous protests ever since the rapprochement.

The United States and Britain refrain from the criticism of human rights violations across Bahrain.

In July, British legislators were pressing the government to provide clear explanations why Bahrain has been removed from its list of human rights priority countries, accusing the government of putting its principles “up for auction” after sealing a billion-pound investment deal with the Persian Gulf state.

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Google Experiments With “Faster and More Adaptable” Censorship of “Harmful” Content Ahead of 2024 US Elections

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | December 20, 2023

In the run-up to the 2020 US presidential election, Big Tech engaged in unprecedented levels of election censorship, most notably by censoring the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story just a few weeks before voters went to the polls.

And with the 2024 US presidential election less than a year away, both Google and its video sharing platform, YouTube, have confirmed that they plan to censor content they deem to be “harmful” in the run-up to the election.

In its announcement, Google noted that it already censors content that it deems to be “manipulated media” or “hate and harassment” — two broad, subjective terms that have been used by tech giants to justify mass censorship.

However, ahead of 2024, the tech giant has started using large language models (LLMs) to experiment with “building faster and more adaptable” censorship systems that will allow it to “take action even more quickly when new threats emerge.”

Google will also be censoring election-related responses in Bard (its generative AI chatbot) and Search Generative Experience (its generative AI search results).

In addition to these censorship measures, Google will be continuing its long-standing practice of artificially boosting content that it deems to be “authoritative” in Google Search and Google News. While this tactic doesn’t result in the removal of content, it can result in disfavored narratives being suppressed and drowned out by these so-called authoritative sources, which are mostly pre-selected legacy media outlets.

Like Google, YouTube confirmed that it will enforce its existing censorship policies ahead of the 2024 elections, including those that apply to election “misinformation” and “harmful conspiracy theories.” These policies resulted in the censorship of tens of thousands of videos and many popular channels in the buildup to and aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

The video sharing platform will also boost videos from authoritative sources — a policy that resulted in independent creators being 14x less likely to be recommended on election-related content after the 2020 elections.

Additionally, YouTube will demonetize videos that it deems to contain “demonstrably false claims that could undermine trust or participation in elections.”

Outside of these direct censorship tactics, YouTube will label “altered or synthetic election content” that doesn’t violate any of its rules. Although these labels won’t result in content suppression, similar labels on other platforms have confused users and resulted in them believing that real but selectively edited videos are fake. Plus, legacy media outlets often use these labels to bolster their censorship demands.

Collectively, these announcements from Google and YouTube signal an intention to supercharge the mass censorship playbook that was deployed during the 2020 election and resulted in a two-tiered system where independent creators that dared to have dissenting or alternative opinions about the election were censored while legacy media outlets had their election narrative boosted across Google’s platforms.

Related: 

How Big Tech Normalized the Censorship of the President

December 21, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Every Legal Option Must Be Explored to Remove Trump From California Ballot – Lt. Governor

Sputnik – 20.12.2023

WASHINGTON – California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis on Wednesday wrote to Secretary of State Shirley Weber demanding that she explore “every legal option” to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot.

“Based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling in Anderson v. Griswold (2023 CO 63), I urge you [Weber] to explore every legal option to remove former President Donald Trump from California’s 2024 presidential ballot,” Kounalakis wrote in her letter.

Kounalakis said she was prompted by the ruling to conclude that Trump is ineligible to appear on the state ballot as a presidential candidate due to his alleged involvement in the so-called insurrection on January 6, 2021. Kounalakis also said Colorado’s decision could serve as the basis for a similar decision in California.

“California must stand on the right side of history,” the letter said. “The constitution is clear: you must be 40 years old and not be an insurrectionist.”

The White house has said on its website that the US Constitution lists three qualifications for the presidency – the president must be at least 35 years old, be a natural born citizen and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

On Tuesday night, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump is disqualified from the 2024 Republican primary ballot due to his role in the events on January 6 at the US Capitol, citing the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The amendment restricts people who are engaged in insurrection from holding public office.

The Trump campaign described the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling as being a “flowed decision” and said they will appeal.

December 20, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties | | Leave a comment