Election fraud, impeachment inquiries, prosecution of political opponents… Can American politics get any worse?
By Drago Bosnic | December 15, 2023
The mainstream propaganda machine’s (ab)use of the term “conspiracy theory” (coined by the likes of the CIA in an attempt to stifle and discredit any information that could hurt their interests) has made it virtually impossible to talk about election fraud in the United States. Anyone even remotely suggesting that this could be possible in the “lighthouse of global democracy” was considered a “conspiracy nut”. Former president Donald Trump was even threatened with legal action if he doesn’t drop the idea. Worse yet, some Democrats have even accused him of supposed “treachery”, as the claims of election fraud could further undermine the otherwise “impeccable” image and reputation of the US.
However, the latest poll, conducted jointly by Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports, based in Illinois and New Jersey, respectively, found that 20% of voters who cast mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election admit to participating in at least one kind of voter fraud. Heartland and Rasmussen claim that when asked, “During the 2020 election, did you fill out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child?”, 21% of respondents who said they voted by mail answered “yes”. It should be noted that filling out a ballot on someone else’s behalf is illegal in all US states (although some allow people to assist others with voting).
In addition, 17% of mail-in voters said they voted “in a state where you were no longer a permanent resident”, while the same percentage also admitted to signing a “ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member”. Both actions are illegal and automatically invalidate votes. The report further points out that over 43% of voters cast ballots by mail, which is by far the highest percentage in US history. Another 10% of all respondents — not just those who said they voted by mail — claimed that they know “a friend, family member, co-worker, or other acquaintance who has admitted … that he or she cast a mail-in ballot in 2020 in a state other than his or her state of permanent residence”.
However, more disturbingly, 8% of all respondents said “a friend, family member, or organization, such as a political party” offered them “pay” or a “reward” for agreeing to vote in the 2020 election. The results of the poll show that election fraud was not only present during the 2020 election, but was actually quite common, particularly in the case of mail-in ballots. It also shows that Trump’s claims were certainly not exaggerated, much less a “conspiracy theory”. However, the troubled Biden administration will certainly keep insisting on this notion, for obvious reasons, of course. And yet, this isn’t where their troubles end, as President Joe Biden is faced with an impeachment inquiry.
Namely, on December 13, the House of Representatives approved the launch of a formal impeachment probe, just hours after Hunter Biden refused a Congressional testimony. According to the Wall Street Journal, formalizing the impeachment process will give Congress additional power by improving the likelihood that a court will authorize access to grand jury materials, as well as boosting the chances that the GOP will be able to overcome objections such as executive privilege. The White House has been trying to torpedo Congressional subpoenas and demands for transcribed interviews with Biden family members since they were launched back in September.
These refusals were based on the grounds that the existing impeachment probe was invalid because the House didn’t vote to authorize it. However, with a 221-212 vote in favor of the inquiry, the Biden administration can’t use this as an excuse anymore. House Speaker Mike Johnson even directly accused the White House of impeding the investigation, which has so far been two-pronged. Namely, the House Oversight Committee is focusing on the Biden family’s corruption, while the House Judiciary Committee is investigating the weaponization of the Justice Department and FBI, as both are being used by the DNC to prosecute political opponents, with a particular focus on Donald Trump.
The sheer number of cases launched against him is absolutely unprecedented. No president has ever been indicted in the US, but Trump now has over half a dozen major cases and a plethora of smaller ones, including for alleged “election subversion”. Trump’s business-minded approach to politics and geopolitics has made him quite a lot of enemies among the political elites in Washington DC, which he, ever so “endearingly” (but not without reason), likes to call “The Swamp”. His statements about Putin and Russia are effectively considered “heresy” among both Democrat neoliberals and his “fellow” Republican neocons. Trump’s aversion toward warmongering is his “gravest crime”.
While in office, he had tremendous problems with warhawks within his own administration, resulting in several high-profile sackings, such as the case of the infamous John Bolton, one of the leading members of the so-called “war party” in Washington DC. Trump’s realpolitik approach stands in stark contrast to the warmongering elite’s overly ideological and completely impractical foreign policy framework that has not only created enemies everywhere, but has also effectively united them. He regularly criticizes his political opponents for underestimating Russia, a resurgent global superpower, rightfully calling it dangerous for US and global security.
However, Trump’s repeated warnings have not only been ignored, but simply rejected by the political establishment. It seems that high-profile US political figures committing any crime can get away with it, including sexual misconduct with minors, as long as they support the official narrative, even when the said narrative leads to a world-ending thermonuclear exchange. However, fighting the narrative in order to prevent such a conflict will almost certainly result in years of incessant and largely unfounded slandering (at best) or even land one in jail on trumped-up (no pun intended) charges. Either way, the current political situation completely dispels the illusion that the US is a democracy.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Congress Extends Mass Surveillance Program
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | December 14, 2023
On Thursday, the US House of Representatives passed a funding bill for next year’s defense expenditures, which controversially incorporates a short-term extension of certain surveillance authority.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) received overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, passing with a vote of 310 to 118. This count far exceeded the two-thirds majority needed for approval. Following its passage, the bill is now headed to the White House, where it awaits President Joe Biden’s signature to become law.
The temporary extension in question belongs to the surveillance capabilities under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was slated to expire at year’s end and have now been renewed through April 2024.
Utah GOP Senator Mike Lee led a robust effort to axe this extension, despite facing defeat.
Notably, a group of thirty-five senators, featuring Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, rallied behind him. However, the movement fell short of the forty-one votes needed to successfully exclude the provision.
A warrantless surveillance mechanism provided for by Section 702 targets non-Americans overseas, a point of sensitive debate because the provision has, despite failed promises from the likes of the FBI to stop, caused surveillance of US citizens.
Two improvement proposals for these mandates were put forth by Republican members but were subsequently withdrawn by House Speaker Mike Johnson amid significant intra-GOP conflicts over the issue.
Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie expressed his dissatisfaction with the inclusion of the FISA extension in bill.
The US Navy Bought Surveillance Data Through Adtech Company Owned by Military Contractor Which Harvests Location Data From Smartphones
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | December 13, 2023
A report from 404 Media, for the most part based on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, has put the pieces of a puzzle together to reveal that the US Navy was in business with an adtech company – that “just” happened to be owned by a major military contractor.
The company, nContext, is owned by Sierra Nevada Corporation, and what this triangle of surveillance was “keeping in the family” is the business of personal data changing hands, and reportedly, global (globally collected) data, at that.
404 Media writes that the public records it has seen show that the Navy was able to use a software tool (called, the Sierra Nevada nContext Vanir) that the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) uses for its surveillance operations around the world.
nContext, supposedly in the adtech (i.e., marketing) business, is behind developing that tool. However, the publicly available documents do not detail what kind of data the company had at its disposal, that was up for sale.
Above all, this is yet another example of how the ad industry – supposedly innocuous, other than for the suspicious amount of money it generates – actually can, and does at times work in insidious ways.
With this context in mind, the complexity and murkiness of the industry is perhaps not haphazard, but there to muddle up things as much as possible: because what this case shows is that an ad company can be collecting people’s data, allegedly for ad purposes (in and of itself, a highly controversial business) – but it then also gets available to all sorts of contractors, including those working closely with the US government, including the military and law enforcement.
The big picture: a government/country that is actively creating workarounds around its own laws and Constitution, which are supposed to mandate protecting citizens (including their right to privacy) – in this case, their private digital data.
“Crucially, when government agencies buy this data from a commercial entity, they can bypass legal restrictions put in place to protect the transfer and use of that information” – is how 404 Media describes this in its report.
In the specific case explored here, and in some previous Wall Street Journal articles, it appears that the information in question is location data taken from people’s phones and computers.
Important points regarding the WHO’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and major changes to the IHR
By Meryl Nass, MD | December 11, 2023
The Committee roster can be found here.
1. The WHO is not an honest broker.
- a. Its Director-General has repeatedly lied about the WHO’s 2 proposed treaties: the pandemic treaty/agreement, and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments, claiming they do not seize sovereignty, when there is no doubt they do precisely that. See Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? by David Bell, MD, PhD and attorney Thi Thuy Van Dinh, PhD.
- b. The WHO appears to have deceived the public about whether the amendments “approved” in May 2022 followed the legally required procedure of a full WHA vote. Twelve members of the European Parliament wrote to the WHO on November 28, 2023 asking for evidence that the WHO actually conducted a vote of the entire World Health Assembly to pass several new amendments in May 2022, with a 48 hour deadline. The WHO did not respond, and the twelve European parliament members declared the May 2022 amendments null and void last week.
- c. The WHO’s principal legal office, Steven Solomon, stated in early October that the IHR working group did not have to follow the required procedure (found in the existing 2005 version of the International Health Regulations) to make public the draft of new proposed amendments 4 months in advance of a vote. Thus, we may not see the new amendments until after the WHO members have voted on them.
2. The WHO’s proposed treaties are unconstitutional
- a. They demand that nations perform surveillance of their citizens’ social media footprints and censor them to prevent ‘infodemics’ (too much information, according to the WHO’s definition), misinformation and disinformation, surveil
- b. They say that nations should give up the intellectual property rights of their citizens.
- c. There is no due process for the declaring or ending of public health emergencies of international concern, for which no standards exist.
3. In the Oct. 30 draft of the treaty, A new WHO Secretariat and Conference of Parties for pandemics are to be established in the future and will make their own rules. Thus, agreeing to this means providing a blank check to the WHO to do whatever it wants at some later date.
4. The 2 proposed treaties ignore existing international law prohibiting the proliferation of biological warfare agents (the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 2004 Security Council Memorandum 1540) and demand that nations search out new agents (a.k.a. “potential pandemic pathogens”) and share them with the WHO, which will “share them globally.” The WHO has already established a BioHub for this purpose and a Pathogen Access and Benefits System.
5. The proposed treaty and amendments also demand that nations perform 2 additional forms of surveillance of their citizens: microbiological surveillance of their populations, animals and ecosystems for pathogens, and surveillance and sharing of medical and hospital records, both of which violate privacy protections.
6. The proposed amendments remove the guarantee of “Human rights, dignity and freedom of persons” that are found in the current international health regulations.
7. The two proposed treaties are both binding, whereas the earlier IHR were recommendations only, apart from minor requirements for notification of certain outbreaks to the WHO. The two proposed documents would give the WHO and particularly its Director-General vast authority to manage healthcare globally. The current Director-General is not a medical practitioner and instead has a PhD in Community Health.
8. The WHO lacks the personnel and expertise to manage international pandemics and other health concerns. Any developed nation has within it much more capacity to understand and manage medical events within its borders, and likely international events as well.
9. The proposed treaty calls for rapidly produced vaccines and for nations to implement domestic legislation to permit the use of unlicensed medical products without manufacturer liability, instead “managing” the liability issues using existing models, such as the US’ Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which has so far compensated 8 Americans for injuries related to EUA COVID products (primarily vaccines) from the 12,358 claims filed. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data
10. It is apparent that in the process of developing the “Pandemic Accord” and amendments to the IHR, WHO/WHA positioned itself in a combined law-making/executive/expert/censorship role, which is a well-known path to usurpation of unrestrained power. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the proposed Amendments grant expressly such power to the WHO.
11. The WHO receives 85% of its funding from voluntary contributions, and only 15% from dues paid by its 194 member nations. Most of the voluntary contributions are earmarked for special projects that the WHO carries out. When President Trump withheld US funding in 2020, Bill Gates became the WHO’s top funder. The (unelected) WHO serves many private masters, yet seeks to govern the world’s population.
12. Virtually every recommendation the WHO made for managing the COVID pandemic was counterproductive. Why would we give the WHO the power to enforce the same bad advice on the US and world?
Dr. Meryl Nass Rejects Maine Medical Board’s Conditions for Reinstating Medical License
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | December 13, 2023
The Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine on Tuesday voted unanimously to extend the suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’ medical license to a period of 39 months, saying she had violated rules set by the board in caring for three patients with COVID-19.
The board ruled that Nass, a biological warfare expert and an outspoken critic of federal COVID-19 policies, had “exhibited incompetency” or failed to meet standards of care in her treatment of the patients.
It imposed a fine of $10,000 toward hearing costs and a two-year probationary period during which Nass would be required to personally finance the costs of engaging professional oversight of her work, take courses in ethics and medical recordkeeping and undergo a competency evaluation, among other things.
The board issued its decision in a three-minute hearing during which neither side was permitted to present closing arguments.
Nass wrote on her substack that the hearing was an “anticlimactic finish” to a case that has dragged on since anonymous complaints were first filed against her in October 2021 for making “misleading” statements.
Those complaints were filed soon after the board issued a position statement, stating that licensees could face disciplinary action if they “generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation.”
Nass, a practicing internal medicine physician and member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory board, was subsequently investigated by the Maine board and faced the initial suspension of her license on Jan. 12, 2022, for spreading COVID-19 “misinformation.”
The board also accused her of improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for three patients for off-label uses of those drugs and failing to keep proper records and medical documentation.
Just prior to her first October 2022 hearing, the board suddenly dropped the charges of “misinformation,” but her license remained suspended and the board continued to investigate the charges related to her treatment of three patients with COVID-19, even though there were no patient complaints related to that treatment.
The board based their Tuesday decision on this set of charges.
Rather than conducting the hearings about the allegations against Nass over consecutive days, the board held single-day hearings about every other month since October 2022 — with Nass’s ability to practice medicine suspended the entire time.
During its seventh day of hearings in September, the board discussed its decision against her and a series of penalties that would be imposed on her. The six board members present and eligible to vote at the September hearing voted that her actions were grounds for discipline on eight of the 13 counts against her.
However, the board never formally finalized that decision and order, or responded to Nass’s inquiries about the decision until Tuesday’s hearing, Nass told The Defender.
Nass said she does not intend to comply with the conditions imposed by the board to recuperate her license, because “their interpretation of what happened and what I’m guilty of completely ignores all the testimony in the hearing that lasted almost a year.”
That included testimonies from Nass’ patients who, according to Nass’ attorney, all made “glowing comments” about her availability, her medical advice and her handling of their cases and expressed anger that Nass was being targeted by the board for their cases.
In total, Nass said that nine people’s testimonies and hundreds, or even thousands of documents demonstrating the legality and ethics of her practices were ignored by the board.
“What they essentially have done is said that I have to practice according to their way of looking at things, or I will never be able to get an unrestricted license back. So I will not be practicing medicine again, according to their requirements,” Nass said.
Instead, Nass is suing the board and its individual members in federal court, alleging the board violated her First Amendment rights and her rights under the Maine Constitution.
The complaint alleges the board engaged in retaliatory conduct against Nass, and suspended her medical license for publicly expressing her dissenting views on official COVID-19 policies, the COVID-19 vaccine and alternative treatments.
“Because she was outspoken, the board targeted Dr. Nass as someone to silence,” her attorney, Gene Libby told The Defender in August when Nass filed the lawsuit.
CHD President Mary Holland agreed. Speaking to Nass about the board hearings on CHD.TV in September, she said the hearing sounded like a “show trial” that is “really about showing a power dynamic” rather than about seeking justice or finding out what happened.
Holland said it seemed Nass was targeted “to send a message to doctors everywhere that, ‘You don’t get to do what you think is in the patient’s best interest. You do what we tell you to do.’”
The first round of oral arguments in Nass’ lawsuit against the board is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2024, before Judge Jon Levy in Portland, Maine.
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.
A New Standard By Which to Measure Infamy
Reality is just more collateral damage in the war on Gaza – and humanity (part II of a series)
(part I, on Israel’s experiments in televised genocide and the international community’s suicidally obsequious response, is here)
Helen of desTroy | December 12, 2023
With all eyes on the historically unprecedented bloodbath Israel is unleashing in Gaza, the transnational parasite class headquartered there is working overtime to accelerate the expansion—and criminalization—of “antisemitism” in the West, taking advantage of the geopolitical chaos they’ve unleashed to expand the sphere of attitudes and behaviors thus classifiable as rapidly as possible in the hope that even the most outrageous overreach will be perceived as the New Normal once the political atmosphere re-congeals. It’s a cynical gambit, but alarmingly likely to succeed, given their top-down control of the media and their previous success in both broadening the term’s definition beyond recognition and shoehorning that expanded definition into law (discussed at length elsewhere on this site) in both public and private life.
Smashing the Overton Window
When several dozen Harvard University campus organizations signed their names to an open letter stating “the apartheid regime is the only one to blame” for the October 7 Hamas raid, the risibly-named hasbara group Accuracy in Media targeted the students with billboard trucks featuring their photos alongside the text “Harvard’s Leading Antisemites,” deploying the trucks first on campus and later to students’ parents’ neighborhoods with the stated goal of turning them into unemployable pariahs. Included on the display was a website urging the reader to petition Harvard’s board of trustees to expel these “despicable, hateful students” and their organizations — all over a letter that contained no references to Jews and limited its criticism to the Israeli government. AIM president Adam Guillette nevertheless boasted of rigging Google search results for the targeted students’ names to prominently display the smear site, telling the New York Post that the letter-writers’ failure to “explicitly condemn Hamas” constituted overt antisemitism. Similar libel-on-wheels campaigns were inflicted on Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, the latter targeting university president Elizabeth Magill herself for having allowed the campus to host a literary event featuring Palestinian writers that one detractor bizarrely referred to as an “antisemitic Burning Man” — weeks before the raid.
The same campuses were simultaneously deluged with complaints — cc’ed to any media outlet within kvetching range – from wealthy, mostly Jewish donors (including Jeffrey Epstein’s benefactor Leslie Wexner in high moral dudgeon) demanding crackdowns on the imaginary plague of “antisemitism on campus,” up to and including the firing of professors over their advocacy for Palestine and the ouster of university presidents for allowing that advocacy to take place. The Anti-Defamation League and other hasbara groups backed by compromised toadies like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio framed college fixtures like Students for Justice in Palestine as literal terrorists starting pogroms in the cafeteria. Astroturfed “student groups” like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s “Israel Alliance” fostered this delusion, bending the ear of domesticated media with claims that students lying on the floor to protest the slaughter in Gaza in a classic “die-in” protest somehow posed a threat to the safety of Jewish students, in a sick echo of Israel’s own claims that flattening entire Palestinian neighborhoods is necessary for “self-defense.” That none of these episodes of antisemitic “intimidation” were ever recorded on the thousands of smartphones in their vicinity was immaterial — the media establishment knew which side of its challah was buttered. After students at both Harvard and Columbia Law Schools reportedly had job offers rescinded for signing onto their respective schools’ open letters in support of Gaza, over two dozen of the largest law firms in the US leaned into the supposedly antisemitic trope of “Jews control the legal system” and wrote a sternly-worded directive to the nation’s top law schools to crack down on the scourge of “antisemitic harassment” or risk none of their graduates ever working in the industry again. Collective punishment — it’s not just for Palestinians anymore.
Within weeks, UPenn, Harvard, and Columbia had all announced antisemitism “task forces,” complete with plans of action lifted directly from the Biden administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a self-righteous panderfest that sank without a ripple when it was unveiled earlier this year. Columbia suspended its chapters of SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace. Pro-Palestinian professors targeted by petitions backed by the hasbara machine were forced to eat their words to keep their jobs — and more than a few were forced out anyway. Several of the Harvard student groups that signed the fateful open letter issued public retractions in a panicked bid to save their employment prospects as a growing swarm of hedge funders and corporate CEOs demanded the school furnish them with the membership rosters of those groups to use as a “do-not-hire” blacklist, and the Harvard Law Review spiked a thoroughly-vetted article on Israel’s genocide in Gaza (a piece the journal had commissioned from a Palestinian doctoral candidate just weeks before) not because it contained factual errors, but because a majority of the journal’s 100 editors feared for their own career prospects.
The individuals whose lives are upended by this kind of socioeconomic terrorism are mere collateral damage in a campaign that is clearly aimed at all of academia, the Frankfurt School’s tried-and-true shortcut to the American collective consciousness. The targeted schools were selected for their potential to set a nationwide trend, as hedge fund parasite and UPenn donor Marc Rowan acknowledged in his demand that university president Liz Magill be fired for not immediately begging forgiveness for allowing a student group to host a Palestinian writers’ festival on campus two weeks before the Hamas raid, rather than their vulnerability to pressure campaigns. Harvard has more money in its endowment than over half the countries on Earth and could easily weather the storm if a few snowflake donors opted to skip their usual conspicuous displays of philanthropy this year, and the other two aren’t far behind. That students at 100 colleges staged a walkout for Gaza even after weeks of this treatment speaks to a massive shift in public opinion, and ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt can be heard freaking out about the “major generational problem” Israel faces with regard to Generation Z on a leaked phone call with fellow Lobby bigwigs obtained by Iranian media last month.
The genocidal cat may be out of the bag, but Big Parasite is determined to ram it back in, tie the bag back up, and drown it in the Dead Sea. It was thus not especially surprising when Susan Sarandon, already reviled among liberals for her refusal to ditch her principles to support Hillary Clinton in 2016, was fired by United Talent Agency for suggesting Jews lacked a monopoly on suffering during a speech she gave at a pro-Palestinian rally in New York, or when screenwriter Aaron Sorkin fired his agent, Maha Dakhil, for accusing Israel of genocide in an Instagram post, or even when Lebanese-born porn star Mia Khalifa lost her Playboy podcast over tweets expressing empathy with Palestinians. Everyone knows Jewish elites have called the shots in the US entertainment industry since its birth. But with control of academia seemingly slipping away, anything less than total ideological lockstep in Hollywood has become suddenly intolerable. The industry’s failure to issue a full-throated demand for bloody vengeance immediately following the Hamas raid, the New York Times declared breathlessly, was not just an outrage, but an antisemitic one. And Hollywood’s faithful didn’t stop at denouncing their colleagues — they unloaded on everyone from the establishment media editors who correctly reported Israel’s airstrike on the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital, to the Writers’ Guild of America (which had just secured favorable contracts for its members after a months-long strike but hadn’t condemned Hamas fast enough), to the TikTok executives unable to inflate traffic for pro-Israel hashtags to the same level as pro-Palestine terms with the platform’s established censorship algorithms. By failing to suppress all pro-Palestine discourse, TikTok executives were enabling the next Holocaust, dozens of Jewish celebrities nearing their sell-by dates, including Amy Schumer, Sacha Baron Cohen and Sarah Silverman, informed two of the platform’s Jewish executives in a Zoom struggle-session that would have been hilarious if not for its real-world repercussions. Armed with cooked data from the ADL, which had conveniently begun counting all pro-Palestinian protests and uses of phrases like “from the river to the sea” in its already-skewed accounting of “antisemitic incidents,” the industry’s dregs literally demanded TikTok (and other social media platforms) give them a magic button to press to disappear the “hate” — which the executives promised to do to the best of their ability. Calls to shut TikTok down have predictably surged among Republican politicians, particularly primary candidates who seem to be campaigning harder for Israeli political office than any in the US. Nikki Haley claimed during last week’s debate that every half-hour of TikTok use made a person 17% more antisemitic, a howler that met with zero laughter from an audience obediently spooked by the platform’s power after Israeli operatives had astroturfed a campaign around Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” to frame TikTok as a hive of antisemitism seducing impressionable young minds to the dark side. If they could not dupe young Americans into supporting Israel as they had their parents, Big Parasite would have to make them an offer they couldn’t refuse.
cleanliness is antisemitic
Selling savagery
To ensure opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza becomes guaranteed career suicide, the Israeli Lobby must widen the exception it has already (and wildly unconstitutionally) carved out of the First Amendment for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to include pro-Palestinian speech of any kind. Congress did the heavy lifting earlier this month with a full-frontal assault on the dictionary, explicitly expanding the already bursting-at-the-seams concept of “antisemitism” to include anti-Zionism. Adopted unanimously save for lonely vertebrate Rep. Thomas Massie, the resolution bemoans a world in which protesters can “spew hateful and vile language amplifying antisemitic themes” in the US’ capital and “4 masked men” can tear an Israeli flag off the wall of a Philadelphia restaurant but is apparently OK with 150 Palestinian children being blown sky-high every day by American-made bombs dropped by Israel’s finest.
But while simply declaring anti-Zionism is antisemitism makes Big Parasite’s job manufacturing consent for its Gaza genocide much easier, it is as fundamentally incompatible with reality as declaring steel a vegetable or Israel a democracy. Jewish religious doctrine has no place for Zionism — Jews aren’t supposed to return to the Holy Land until the Messiah shows up, and most of them don’t recognize any past or current claimants to that title — but then most of Israel’s inhabitants aren’t particularly religious, and the ones that are wouldn’t be caught dead fighting for the IDF, details generally left out of stateside hagiographies of the “special relationship.”
A who’s-who of controlled opposition has been deployed to sell Israel’s case for ethnic cleansing, led by purported free-speech crusaders from histrionic trainwreck Laura Loomer and Musk-anointed professional whiner Bari Weiss to conservative college blog CampusReform. The latter’s content transformed practically overnight on October 8 from criticism of woke damage and thought-policing in higher education to a baying chorus of self-righteous slopaganda-spewers suggesting those who oppose the IDF’s brutality should be not only deplatformed but personally harassed, many articles including lists of names of professors and even students whose only transgression was opposing the Israeli occupation. That such spiteful malingering brought this supposedly conservative outlet into ideological lockstep with professional Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer Michael Rapaport, who not only conflated failure to condemn Hamas with antisemitism but threatened these newly-minted “antisemites” with the withdrawal of financial support from their projects, supposedly on behalf of a cabal of Jews who were “making a list” in order to punish the insufficiently-genocidal in the future, does not appear to bother anyone on the Right. Indeed, Rapaport has done a 180 and embraced the candidacy of the man he endearingly refers to as “Pig Dick” for president, thanks apparently to the latter’s unquestioned subservience to Israel, and his fellow grifters in the Trump camp have welcomed him as the prodigal son.
At the same time as the Right was extending its Big Tent to include anyone who could hold up an Israeli flag without shitting themselves, conservative influencers who strayed even slightly from the path dictated by Tel Aviv in the hours after Hamas’ incursion were publicly and messily sacrificed, no matter how enthusiastically they had deep-throated the Zionist cause in the past. Charlie Kirk, the founder of conservative campus group Turning Point who is regularly heckled at his own events for his slavish devotion for Israel, was publicly crucified as an antisemite for suggesting someone in Netanyahu’s government must have known about Hamas’ plans before October 7. Abandoned by the Zionist masters he’d relentlessly shilled at the cost of his early grassroots supporters, a suddenly-friendless Kirk began manically cucking to atone for his moment of doubt, even as those initial suspicions were completely validated by the news that Tel Aviv had not only had Hamas’ exact invasion plan in hand a year before October 7 but had ignored numerous warnings by IDF troops stationed at the Gaza border who observed Palestinian militants “rehearsing” the plan in the weeks preceding that invasion.
The most valuable horse in Netanyahu’s stable is billionaire troll Elon Musk, the self-appointed guru of “free speech absolutism” (now with more loopholes). Fresh off suing neoliberal-centrist smear merchant Media Matters over a ruinous outbreak of advertiser boycotts supposedly triggered by a manipulation of Twitter that forced ads to appear alongside neo-Nazi content, Musk simped his way across Israel earlier this month, dutifully parroting his hosts’ explanation that they were slaughtering the people of Gaza because Palestinians “think it’s OK to kill civilians” (the 18,000 civilians Israel has massacred in the space of two months having apparently been murdered only with extreme regret). He even repeated the claim that Palestinian hatred for Israelis must stem from antisemitic propaganda they’re taught as kids in school rather than the reality of living with those Israelis’ boots on their necks and spit in their eyes for generations. With regular condemnations from the Anti-Defamation League bolstering his anti-woke cred, Musk convinced millions of adoring fanboys that he had bought Twitter to return it to its mythical heyday as the Free Speech Wing of the Free Speech Party™ by occasionally tweeting into the tamer fringes of the Narrative — despite ratcheting up obedience to government censorship requests, putting a World Economic Forum lackey in the driver’s seat, and building a privatized social credit score system far worse than anything ever actually seen in China. The Israeli trip punctuated his latest redemption arc, which began when he questioned the legitimacy of Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians and really caught fire with an acknowledgment that “Jewish communities” aren’t huge fans of white people before our hero learned a Valuable Lesson about the legitimacy of genocide in the service of real estate acquisition. When he flipped off New York Times DealBook smarm-meister (and close personal Musk friend of 16 years) Andrew Ross Sorkin onstage after coming home, credulous dissidents across the West swooned.
The Lobby deliberately courts influencers with cross-partisan appeal like Musk, Democratic congresswoman-turned-Fox News pundit Tulsi Gabbard, and vaccine safety advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to create the false impression that a Zionist consensus supersedes all the usual sociopolitical divides. These assets are allowed to gain political traction with vocal, even eloquent opposition to the US’ Israel-fellating neocon foreign policy, and only once their antiwar or pro-First Amendment bona fides are firmly established are they ordered to “come out” as pro-Israel. Their most devoted followers will dutifully embrace their incongruous drift into warmongering and censorship, accepting cognitive dissonance as the cost of doing business (don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good! ) and even coaxing some skeptics into riding that sunk cost fallacy all the way into the pasture of Righteous Goyim. A thick folder of compromising material is kept by these assets’ handlers, capable of being deployed piecemeal to ensure that anyone who starts to get cold feet over duping their followers into embracing the violent racist death cult currently occupying Palestine can be persuaded to resume full obedience before they’ve passed the point of no return. Big Parasite loves a good ritual humiliation, and there’s nothing like dangling the tapes from those long-ago trips through the friendly skies on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express in front of a hungry reporter to make even an intelligent person spout the most aggressively ignorant Ziofascist thuggery this side of a Likud party meeting while flanked with obscene grifters like Shmuley Boteach, declaring with a straight face that the IDF is not only the most moral army in the world but does not — has never! — deliberately target(ed) civilians.
On the record advocating for Palestine? They can probably still use you, given how few people can stand by what Israel is doing in Gaza without becoming violently ill. Just publicly recant your ideological crimes, preferably with a pained look on your face, and start puking out cult dogma, as Musk did while Israeli President Isaac Herzog clapped like a seal during the former’s apology tour. Countless social media influencers have come forward since October 7 showing off emails from Israeli PR firms offering insulting sums in exchange for “sponsored” content, a poisoned hook that not only renders the entire pool of Israel/Palestine social media content questionable but allows Israel to claim plausible deniability regarding its own dismal performance in TikTok’s metrics — see, those dastardly Palestinians must be paying for their traffic, maybe we should ban TikTok after all! And when Israel can’t get their (wo)man, they are not above using AI to fake it. Model Bella Hadid, whose Palestinian father’s family lost their home in Safed during the 1948 Nakba when a Jewish refugee family from Europe to whom the Hadids had given shelter took over their home while the Hadids were away, was deepfaked into an apology video in which “she” recanted her past support for Palestine and embraced Israel, claiming to have “taken time to truly learn the historical context.”
October 7 is the new January 6
Big Parasite’s efforts to collapse any daylight between “free-speech” crusaders and Zionist zealots is a desperate bid to prevent any empathy from developing between its own victims in Palestine and in Washington — specifically those who’ve found themselves in social-credit purgatory, unable to board a plane or open a bank account due to attending the January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” protest. Despite similar experiences with over-the-top Orwellian surveillance and harassment by Big Brother and Big Tech for behavior which no reasonable person would define as crime, conservatives have been repeatedly lied to by Israel-affiliated “America First” sites like Breitbart and the Free Beacon that they have absolutely nothing in common with Palestinians and Palestine advocates who’ve been facing similar treatment from the US government for so long that an entire organization, Palestine Legal, arose to defend them in court. When hundreds of Jewish peace activists were arrested on Capitol Hill a week after the Hamas raid, J6 patron saint Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused her colleague and Congress’ sole Palestinian, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, of leading a “pro-Hamas insurrection,” demanding Tlaib be censured and the demonstrators receive the same harsh sentences as the Stop the Steal crowd. She justified her sudden embrace of the police-state tactics she’d railed against for the previous two years by offering up the stale hasbara nugget that to be pro-Palestinian was to support Hamas, citing the ADL — which has called Greene herself “somewhere between deranged and demented” — in her desperate reach to denounce Jewish Voice for Peace as an extremist group.
Similarly, when conservatives better known for fighting the Biden administration’s unconstitutional crackdown on social media had a chance to join hands across the aisle with liberal university presidents struggling to flex their own disused First Amendment rights against the Lobby’s McCarthyite demand for a loyalty oath during this month’s campus antisemitism hearing, they chose instead to join the neocons in piling on the Ivy League women. It wasn’t so much the universities’ insufficient bubble-wrapping of the Jewish Campus Experience™ that bothered what should have been natural allies, but not hiring “enough” conservative and/or pro-Trump faculty and for overdosing on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion kool-aid — claims that were at best irrelevant, at worst unproven, and made the questioners look like petty bullies trafficking in entitled male resentment.
Billed as a hearing on “college campus antisemitism,” the House Education and Workforce Committee’s sadistic four-hour interrogation of the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT last week proved once again the impossibility of appeasing one’s way out of tyranny. Despite having cooperated promptly and exhaustively in reorienting their universities’ campus life around the fictional scourge of antisemitism after October 7, dropping everything to assemble a whole new layer of bureaucracy capable of protecting the Ivy League’s Jewish snowflakes from accidental contact with student activism, Claudine Gay (Harvard), Liz Magill (UPenn), and Sally Kornbluth (MIT) were bullied and harassed in the name of stopping antisemitic bullying and harassment by making speech the Lobby doesn’t like an actionable disciplinary offense. When none of the presidents cracked under the full gale force of Rep. Elise Stefanik’s pearl-clutching tantrum even after she revealed their universities would be turned inside out with Title VI investigations, a nasty little tactic capable of ripping a multi-million dollar hole in one’s institution, one of UPenn’s Jewish sugar daddies threatened to drill an even bigger hole in the school’s war chest if Magill was allowed to stay, claiming he had anonymously donated $100 million in options from his Stone Street Asset Management firm — and that those options could be yanked back the minute he felt the school was no longer representing his Values faithfully. Because the board didn’t want to play chicken with a $100 million gift — not when there was a nice responsible Jewish girl already standing by as vice-chair waiting to fill Magill’s uncooperative shoes — it was done.
Greenblatt was soon troping up a storm on CNN as he gloated about Magill’s demise, claiming he could have helped UPenn — they’d contacted him, after all, as had Harvard — but they just wouldn’t do what he wanted. This wishlist had somehow metastasized from establishing an antisemitism task force to ordering that task force to ‘solve’ antisemitism within a designated time frame, purging university curricula of references to Israeli apartheid, adopting a hate speech code prominently featuring the bloated-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness IHRA definition of antisemitism (long since rejected by its creator as unfit for purpose) to be centered within a revamped Diversity, Equity and Inclusion framework, and correspondingly stepped-up punishments meted out to students, professors, administrators, and even the university itself if a Jewish student felt momentarily uncomfortable. Meanwhile, for hesitating before stripping students of their rights, then apologizing for crimes they did not actually commit, these university presidents have been doubly condemned to eternal “Jewish media torture” (for some idea of what to expect, refer to the character assassination of British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn).
The aim of the elaborate and frankly absurd manipulations Big Parasite has visited upon the minds of the West over the last two months is to normalize the most severe punishments for the slightest deviation from total fealty to the Israeli line — not so much shifting the Overton window as throwing a cinderblock through it in an epistemological Kristallnacht while somewhere, Jonathan Greenblatt screams like a little girl. Such upheaval is deliberately, unmanageably chaotic to ensure it cannot be reversed without extreme difficulty. It is now supposedly normal to be blacklisted, to lose one’s job and to get suspended from school for uttering “free Palestine.” Being refused a hotel room — or one’s constitutional right against self-incrimination — because of perceived failure to adequately condemn events that transpired halfway around the world and have no bearing on one’s life is not only viewed as socially legitimate but expected. The popular pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea” was alchemically transmuted in a matter of hours on October 7 into a terrorist threat meaning the genocide of all Jewish Israelis (when in reality Jews peacefully lived among the Arab population of Palestine when it stretched from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea before the 1948 Nakba), and merely uttering it on Twitter – or even using the word “decolonization” – is cause for suspension, courtesy of Elon “I pretended to sue the ADL so you’d let me hand over your biometrics to Israel” Musk. An entire Twitter account with accompanying website was created to cement a bogus equivalency between removing posters of Israeli hostages from the American walls they’ve been irrelevantly posted on and “Jew hate.” Such “hate” need not mention Israel or Jews at all — Starbucks sued its own employee union over their social media posts expressing solidarity with Gaza, and the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce launched a campaign against the popular cafe chain with the slogan, “Drinking a cup of Starbucks is drinking a cup of Jewish blood.” Wave a Palestinian flag at a protest? You might as well be heiling Hitler.
To make sure this avalanche of fraud stays put, Big Parasite has made a bold grab for the control room of the internet itself, consolidating what is already near-total control so as to prevent even the slightest pin-pricks of light from hitting the retinas of the populations they must keep in the dark to complete their atrocities unmolested. In October, the US Federal Communications Commission quietly passed a measure giving itself total control of the transmission of all content across US internet infrastructure in the name of upholding “equity,” leaning on an already legally-absurd concept in order to justify something so far outside the bounds of law it might as well have been written in feces on the walls of an asylum. The agency’s own commissioner, Brendan Carr, took to social media to warn Americans what was in the works, explaining that the plan “hands the Administrative State effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the country.” Just as the people of Gaza have been all but muzzled by Israel’s deliberate shutdown of electricity and internet and blockade of fuel deliveries to the enclave, so will Americans find that their words can no longer reach an audience — either inside the US or outside its borders — if the FCC thinks it might hurt an influential Jew’s feelings. This is not speculation — the ADL made the argument for targeting internet infrastructure to suppress wrongthink earlier this year, and especially after the Biden administration had its wrist slapped for playing Ministry of Truth at the platform level with the Missouri v Biden decision, it has become abundantly clear to Big Parasite that preventing the transmission of such material is a much more final solution than trying to prevent its publication.
Preemptive self-defense
By equating pro-Palestinian speech with the literal genocide of Jews, Big Parasite’s agents in the West are not just dismantling the last remaining safeguards against state-sponsored censorship — they are opening the door to monstrous acts of “preemptive self-defense,” a concept only the diseased minds running the Israeli government would ever have had the chutzpah to attempt in real life. Former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked cited just such a rationale for killing Palestinian children, whom she memorably referred to as “little snakes” in 2015, while the IDF’s “one shot, two kills” t-shirt has become a critical artifact for understanding the Israeli mind. As a desperate Israel runs out of threadbare narratives to brandish in the hope of distracting from the abattoir it’s operating in Gaza, American dissidents risk losing quite a bit more than just their jobs when they challenge Bibi the butcher.
coming soon to a boardroom near you
Israel has made it clear: support for Palestinians is support for Hamas. Anyone found to be supporting Hamas is a terrorist. All terrorists must die. And by the way, we’re gonna send the IDF around to all your countries — if Mossad isn’t already there — to make sure we got them all. Oh, and the US Congress has decided anti-Zionism makes you a terrorist too. Sleep tight!
The line between character assassination and actual assassination has never been thinner, especially with Big Parasite’s control of AI — both through operational algorithms and the feeder material, which is sourced from Wikipedia or its even less reliable cousin Wikidata more often than you’d like to think. They do not need TikTok users’ approval or even consent to insert the most aesthetically and morally repugnant content directly into the collective consciousness, especially once Musk fanboys start lining up for their Neuralinks and find themselves completely unable to question why their thoughts are suddenly expressed with an Israeli accent (“the tewwowists are coming!”)
Palestinian poet Refaat Alareer chillingly predicted his own demise as the result of “Bari Weiss and her likes” in a tweet less than a month before Israel bombed his sister’s house last week, killing him and half a dozen family members. Below a screenshot of his inbox, which was overflowing with poorly-spelled death threats, was a tweet from the perennially-butthurt Weiss spotlighting him for joking about whether an Israeli baby supposedly found in an oven in the world’s least original atrocity propaganda recipe had been cooked “with or without baking powder.” Weiss, like Musk, Gabbard, Kennedy, and any of countless other controlled-oppo personalities, presents herself as a fierce foe of cancel culture while hypocritically embracing it against anyone opposed to the genocide of Gaza, to the point that she has apparently moved up to helping cancel them for real.
the next butthurt loser you mock online might be working for Peter Thiel
Weiss last week retweeted an ominous message from Palantir, the Orwellian “security” firm founded by billionaire technofascist Peter Thiel. The company, it said, had opened its arms to Jewish students pissed that their universities wouldn’t evict pro-Palestinian students from campus wholesale. Palantir has offered such wannabe-Kissingers positions in a secretive new initiative apparently targeting those universities — and potentially anyone else who gets in the way, since putting killing machines in the hands of insecure nerds with grudges is not exactly self-limiting — with “actions on the battlefield.”
Witnessing the rollout of this repressive control agenda should only spur dissidents to greater activity, as many are beginning to understand — at least on a subconscious level — that if Gaza and the West Bank fall, these predators will come knocking on our doors (and while Jonathan Greenblatt may look like Nosferatu, he does not have to be invited in). Thousands of artists, writers and performers have hit back against the effort to delete Palestine from the discourse as a pretext for deleting it from history, fully aware that the censorship campaign they are facing off against represents an existential threat precisely because of the heavy-handed unpersoning of so many of their peers. One day we may find ourselves “deplatformed” only to realize we have to pay a toll to reenter the real world — and it’s Worldcoin or no world for you.
The twin spirals of silence and complicity are already twisting into an epistemological barbed wire fence, completing the Total Demoralization project that has been underway since Zionism took its first breath and shouted that this planet was not big enough for the both of us. They are correct — it isn’t big enough at all — but it is not we who have to go.
Penn Students’ Lawsuit Shows Campus Antisemitism Uproar Is A Manufactured Crisis
Vast majority of “incidents” are merely expressions of unwelcome political views
By Brian McGlinchey | Stark Realities | December 12, 2023
Saturday’s resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill came after months of controversy — and a viral-video grilling of Magill in a congressional hearing — over allegations the school has become a hotbed of antisemitism.
While those allegations have been given widespread credence, a Stark Realities analysis of dozens of claimed antisemitic incidents at Penn finds that, apart from a small handful of cases, the great majority are merely instances in which Penn students, professors and guest speakers engage in political expression that proponents of the State of Israel strongly disagree with.
Conveniently, a catalogue of supposed examples of anti-Jew bigotry at Penn is laid out in a federal lawsuit filed last week against the school by two Jewish students who allege it “has transformed itself into an incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment, and discrimination.” In the suit, dual American-Israeli citizen Eyal Yakoby and American Jordan Davis seek “substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial.”
For those wanting to look beyond what’s been said about Penn by grandstanding politicians, click-seeking news outlets and sensationalist social media posters, the 84-page complaint is a valuable resource. Unlike the sloppy court of public opinion, real courts demand a detailed presentation of specific allegations.
However, scrutiny of the Penn complaint — prepared by Philadelphia lawyer and Penn law grad Eric Shore and New York City law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres — confirms the campaign against the Philadelphia school is just the latest component a broader, long-running drive to censor political expression that’s critical of the State of Israel and sympathetic to Palestinians.
In support of that drive, conservatives who’d previously and rightfully bashed campus viewpoint censorship and crackdowns on flexibly-defined “hate speech” are among the most vocal advocates of installing a new censorship regime to keep students “safe” from anti-Israel rhetoric.
Objective readers of the complaint will quickly note a number of red flags, starting with strident, vitriolic language referring to “rabidly antisemitic professors” and “Jew-hating” speakers who “spew antisemitic venom” by “bellowing into bullhorns to express their hatred for Israel.”
However, the complaint’s foremost flaw is its repeated assumption that various political concepts, views and slogans promoted by critics of Israel are inherently antisemitic or genocidal. This kind of attack isn’t unique to the Penn complaint; it’s constantly used by Israel’s advocates to silence the opposition. Among the forbidden ideas:
- Anti-Zionism. A philosophy embraced by many Jews, anti-Zionism opposes the idea of a Jewish nation-state. Opposing the concept of such a Jewish state doesn’t automatically make someone a bigot any more than opposing a white state or a Christian state does. The Chavurah, a progressive Jewish group at Penn, recently rejected this charge, saying that “continual conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism undermines any chance for productive dialogue at Penn concerning Israel.”
- Questioning Israel’s “right to exist.” No country has a right to exist. Countries are mere political arrangements. There’s nothing inherently bigoted about campaigning for a different political order between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The State of Israel has no more “right to exist” than did the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, or does North Korea or the United States.
- “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” As I wrote last month, “while any slogan will mean different things to different people, this one has been used for decades by Palestinians seeking the same liberties as Israeli Jews throughout the entire territory ruled by the State of Israel.” For most, it’s a call for the State of Israel to be replaced by a new governing arrangement. While some may be reasonably concerned about how that would play out, the idea isn’t inherently genocidal or antisemitic.
- The Palestinian “right of return.” This concept argues that Palestinians displaced by the 1948 creation of Israel should be allowed to return to their homes. It isn’t inherently embedded with bigotry, as the complaint suggests. Indeed, its advocates would argue the concept is a counter to Israeli ethnocentrism.
- “Singling out” Israel for criticism. This preposterous standard, routinely advanced by Zionists, suggests that it’s antisemitic to criticize policies of the Israeli government if you don’t simultaneously criticize other governments guilty of the same sins.
- Calling Israel an “apartheid state.” A great many Jews say Israel satisfies the definition of apartheid — for starters, Hebrew University Holocaust professor Amos Goldberg, former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo and Israeli human rights group B’Tselem.
- Accusing Israel of genocide. While the suit is filled with accusations of genocidal intent on the part of pro-Palestinian activists, the plaintiffs would have us assume it’s antisemitic to argue that Israel’s bombardment of civilian areas in Gaza and displacement of Palestinians amounts to genocide.
- Urging boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. In another display of double-standards, Israel’s backers cheer on economic warfare against Iran, but the BDS movement — which aims to achieve better treatment of Palestinians by using similar economic tactics — is supposedly a bigoted enterprise.
The most controversial term, “intifada,” has been chanted by pro-Palestinian protesters at Penn and around the world. Roughly translating to English as “shaking off,” intifada refers to an uprising against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians have engaged in two previous intifadas. While the tactics included suicide bombings targeting civilians, Palestinians also engaged in peaceful protests, rioting, and attacks on Israeli government targets ranging from mere stone-throwing to deadly rocket attacks.
“It is not a term against Jews, it is a term against the Israeli government,” said Glenn Greenwald last week on his show, System Update. “Just like you’re allowed to say ‘I think we should bomb Iran’ or go to war in Iraq or ‘flatten Gaza,’ people are allowed to say, allowed to opine…in the United States of America, that the repression by the Israeli government has become sufficiently severe that an uprising or even violence against the State of Israel is warranted.”
“Intifida” played a key role in last week’s Capitol Hill grilling of then-Penn president Magill, Harvard president Claudine Gay and MIT president Sally Kornbluth by New York Rep. Elise Stefanik.
[…]
Finally, in what may be the complaint’s “jump the shark” moment, the plaintiffs accuse Penn of discriminating against Jews “by intentionally reducing its Jewish enrollment.” Jews represent about 2.4% of the US population, but occupy 16% of Penn’s prized enrollment slots.
The complaint decries the fact that the Jewish share has fallen from about a third of students in 2000, a trend they say the school has “intentionally engineered.” The plaintiffs don’t specify which non-Jewish populations are now over-represented at Jews’ expense. – Full article
Former Federal German Minister Under Merkel Warns: Germany Heading To A Climate Tyranny
“Basic rights in crisis mode” in Germany. The real threat to democracy.
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | December 12, 2023
“How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state,” a former German federal minister warns.
Kristina Schröder, who served as the Federal Family Minister from 2009 to 2013 in the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, recently commented that Germany currently finds itself on a dangerous environmentally dogmatic path under the current leadership.
Pandemic as the blueprint
In a commentary published at Der Pragmaticus, she writes: “The pandemic has provided a blueprint for the climate movement on how to enforce fundamental restrictions on basic rights.”
“Germany is heading in the direction of a radical climate protection dogma that almost completely ignores the costs of the path taken. And once again, the two predominant patterns of argumentation in the pandemic can be observed: A refusal to weigh things up and an ends-justify-the-means mindset,” Schröder adds. “I am convinced that large sections of the climate protection movement are also fighting our way of living and our economy at least as much as they are fighting climate change.”
CO2 as the virus to fear
Schröder adds that it is easy to see that CO2 is being viewed as a virus and to imagine future measures to curb it: “there is a threat of regulations affecting our most private lifestyles. How we live, heat, get around, travel and what we eat could soon no longer be an individual decision, but increasingly be dictated by the state.”
Schellnhuber “3 tonnes per year”
She also speaks critically of Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) who proposes “every citizen could be given a CO2 budget of three tons per year.” The average German emits 11 tons per year, and thus getting down to just 3 would certainly entail draconian restrictions and regulations.
But so far many Germans have been acting complacently about such drastic proposals, Schröder notes, adding: “This eager willingness to relinquish fundamental freedoms is all the more disturbing as a crucial question is hardly being asked, let alone answered: Does effective climate protection really have to mean such losses of freedom and prosperity?”
Schröder, who contributes regularly to Welt, also wonders why in Germany there’s such a “blindness to the costs” of reducing CO2. “Why this indifference to the loss of freedom and prosperity?” And: “Why this longing for bans, renunciation and penance?”
“Powerful lever” against capitalism
In Schröder’s view, for the activists, climate protection is “a powerful lever to push back the hated capitalist system.”
She concludes:
“I am certain that if a technical solution were to be found tomorrow that would allow us to render CO2 harmless overall, large sections of the radical climate protection movement would not be relieved, but disappointed.”
For the greens and the many activists, it’s follow our politics! It’s not about science.
Read Kristina Schröder’s full commentary here (German).
UK Government Justifies Using Royal Air Force To Monitor Online COVID Speech, Calls “Disinformation” a “Serious Threat”
Even lawmakers and journalists had their speech monitored
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | December 12, 2023
The Mail on Sunday reported that UK Royal Air Force (RAF) intelligence agents participated in a covert operation run by Whitehall, which was suspected of surveilling private citizens speaking out against Covid lockdown measures. This secretive operation was led by The Army’s “information warfare brigade,” tasked with analyzing online commentary—a charge the Ministry of Defence repeatedly rebuffed publicly until the recent reveal.
Documentation furnished by this publication suggests the Armed Forces, particularly those located at RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire, assisted various government bodies, such as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport’s Counter Disinformation Unit and the Cabinet Office’s Rapid Response Unit. Their engagement in these initiatives was much more substantial than formerly known, per this latest revelation.
The clandestine operations in focus took on the challenge of countering “disinformation” and “harmful” narratives throughout the pandemic. However, they also garnered severe backlash for allegedly gathering data from lawful social media posts that challenged the Government’s lockdown maneuvers.
Prominent public figures, like David Davis MP, who voiced skepticism over the Covid mortality rates’ computed projections, and journalist Peter Hitchens, were the subjects of government reports. Insiders from the defense department conceded that the military’s contribution to such operations might be portrayed as spying on UK citizens, a segment from the furnished documents revealed.
However, the MoD alleged that the absence of Armed Forces support in overseeing online discourse could catalyze the propagation of “misinformation,” which could cause harm.
Jake Hurfurt, representing the advocacy group Big Brother Watch, didn’t mince his words, slamming these activities asking for a review on how the government monitored the British people throughout the pandemic period. He stated to the Mail on Sunday, “The revelations that the RAF as well as the Army spied on the British people during the pandemic is yet more evidence that the MoD misled the public about the role of its psyops troops in 2020.”
The government responded to these allegations stating, “Online disinformation is a serious threat, which is why in the pandemic we brought together expertise from across government to monitor disinformation about Covid.”
They alleged that all data collected were from public sources and the units did not target individuals or interfere with public discussions.
Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty?
By David Bell and Thi Thuy Van Dinh | Brownstone Institute | December 11, 2023
The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:
No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO,
referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to.
A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:
- The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
- The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
- The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics.
The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications.
The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here.
The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making
Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.
The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18):
- require medical examinations;
- review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
- require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
- place suspect persons under public health observation;
- implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
- implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
- implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
- refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
- refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
- implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO 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 (UDHR):
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9).
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12).
- Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13).
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19).
- Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20).
- The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21).
- Everyone has the right to work (Article 23).
- Everyone has the right to education (Article 26).
- Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28).
- Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30).
These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.
The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on
- Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1),
- Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A).
States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.
As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.
- States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42):
Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.
Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it.
Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty.
All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.”
It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction.
If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span.
Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using.
The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty
The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12):
In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers.
And Article 20 (1):
… provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.
The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b).
Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary.
In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens.
As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18):
… and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation…
As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO.
The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended.
It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool).
Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding?
Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates.
The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022:
We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…,
repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration:
… an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024,
and by the Council of the European Union:
A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.
The IHR already has standing under international law.
While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect.
The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain.
The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty
The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies.
If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.
The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign.
The Need for Clarification
TheWHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.
No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day).
So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.
David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.
What Sort of “Caring” Do Zionist Medical Faculty at U of T Teach?
By Yves Engler | Dissident Voice | December 11, 2023
An exaggerated sense of self-importance and entitlement, hubris, chutzpah, racism while claiming victimhood and massively flawed thinking are the descriptors that come to mind when considering the 555 doctors at the U of T who signed an Open Statement to the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine (TFOM) from Jewish Physician Faculty.
The statement is an endorsement of Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has been “catastrophic”, according to the WHO, for its healthcare system and killed 200 medical workers.
The opening declaration is: “We affirm the right of TFOM faculty to be openly Zionist and to support the right of Israel to exist and defend itself as a Jewish state and for those faculty to be free of public ostracism, recrimination, exclusion, and discrimination in the TFOM.”
In plain language, the doctors want to promote Israel’s slaughter in Gaza and not be challenged by (disproportionately) racialized and younger students and colleagues.
The statement effectively brands all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. It declares “that accusations against Israel as ‘apartheid’, ‘colonialist’, or ‘white supremacist’ or committing genocide are mendacious and aim to promote the argument that Israel should be dismantled as a Jewish state, making such accusations themselves antisemitic.” Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Al Haq, B’tselem and the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinians have all labeled Israel an apartheid state. Many Zionist pioneers described their aims as “colonial” and hundreds of experts in the field believe Israel is currently committing genocide in Gaza.
While framing themselves as victims, the letter threatens colleagues. “We believe that academic freedom is not absolute. In particular, leaders in academic medicine with power over learners and faculty, who in some cases are the sole leader responsible for thousands of learners and faculty, should not be issuing statements which collide with equity, diversity and inclusion for Jews or which make Jews feel unsafe and unwelcome in the TFOM and which are unrelated or unessential to their core academic role, research, and publishing of results.”
But it’s the many openly racist signatories who have authority over students, as Ghada Sasa’s followers showed on X. The new medical collective Combat Online Harassment concluded, “1 in 5 signatories to the University of Toronto medical school’s proud Zionist letter with active Twitter accounts have posted racist, hateful, or harmful materials!”
This includes Sandy Buchman justifying massacres against Palestinians since Gaza is a “sociopathic society full of murderers”. Another Zionist letter signatory Gideon Hirschfield liked a tweet threatening all Palestinians in Gaza with “immediate and complete destruction” and Dr. Leslie Shulman called for deporting darker skinned teenagers who protested against genocide in Toronto. “Expel. Them. Now. Reason… failure to show evidence of being human.”
Combat Online Harassment, a group of North American healthcare workers, says it was formed in response to “increasing amounts of racist anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic behavior from our colleagues. Simultaneously, we’ve observed an unsettling trend where physicians expressing pro-Palestinian views find themselves unjustly targeted with baseless accusations of antisemitism, resulting in detrimental consequences for their careers. Our work aims to highlight the double standard in the policing of voices; clearly racist and hateful views (ones we post), if coming from Zionists, face little to no repercussions.”
Jewish Zionist doctors have succeeded in punishing anti-genocide voices for making them “feel” uncomfortable. The most high-profile and egregious case is University of Ottawa doctor Yoni Freedhoff who targeted resident Yipeng Ge, leading to his suspension. Over 95,000 people have signed a petition calling for Ge to be reinstated. Toronto Star columnist Shree Paradkar noted, “Several Ontario doctors tell me they are being hauled up for supporting Palestinian rights including for signing a ‘don’t bomb hospitals’ petition. Higher-ups have told them there were complaints and accused them of making Jewish colleagues feel unsafe.”
The Zionist letter highlights the power dynamic in medicine and TFOM. A year ago I wrote about a big Israel lobby and media brouhaha over a ‘report’ on purported antisemitism at TFOM. It concluded: “As Black and Indigenous — and to a lesser extent Latin American, South Asian and Arab — communities struggle for positions within the elite institution, many Jewish and politically Zionist faculty members complain that expressing solidarity with Palestinians discriminates against them. Their pressure led to the appointment of a Special Adviser on Anti-Semitism who published a spurious ‘report’, which outside groups amplified and the dominant media covered widely. This reflects power, not oppression.”
When 555 Jewish doctors openly support Israel’s killing of 17,000 Palestinians this confirms that analysis.
And it makes one wonder what sort of education the ‘caring professions’ at U of T are receiving.
Featured Video
Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Dirty Little Secret behind the “Global Terrorism Index”
The Omission of Israeli Terrorism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
By Karin Brothers | Global Research | December 6, 2014
… The Israeli settlements — all of which are illegal – have been identified as a major impediment to peace. The refusal of a major “global” terrorism report to name the Israeli settlers as one of the groups most responsible for terrorism not only misrepresents a major source of regional violence but exposes the Global Terrorism Index as a propaganda tool that supports a U.S. agenda.
In recent years, governments have been attempting to thwart terrorism by blocking supportive fund-raising. When it comes to Israeli settlements, however, the US and Canada actually encourage fund-raising by giving organizations (such as Christian Friends of Israeli Communities (CFOIC) and the Jewish National Fund) financial support in the form of donor tax-deductions.
Charities which provide funds for the Israeli settlements should be regarded as terror-financing organizations. They should not only lose their tax-deductible status, but they should be banned because they support the violation of international humanitarian law. The terror-financing laws that are being strictly enforced for Muslim charities should be applied to Christian and Jewish charities as well. … Read full article
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
- Ukraine Sea Drone Fired From Libya Hit Russian Tanker in Mediterranean
- IRGC: Iranian forces launched no attacks during ceasefire hours
- Trump Administration Moves To Automate U.S. Military Draft Registration
- Spain orders reopening of Tehran embassy, condemns Israel’s carpet bombing of Lebanon
- Israel faces ‘unsustainable’ strategic crisis following 40-day war against Iran: Analyst
- Iran restricts Hormuz access to 15 vessels per day under ceasefire terms: Report
- The ‘Opposition Party’ Has Done Nothing to Stop the Iran War and Much to Goad Trump Into Continuing It
- Moscow backs Tehran on status of Lebanon in US-Iran deal
- How UK Regulator Ofcom Quietly Bypassed International Law to Police American Speech
- If Americans Knew
- Amnesty: Urgent – Protect Lebanese civilians from brutal escalation in Israeli attacks
- Is The War Against Iran Over?
- Inside the Israeli army’s propaganda wing
- Hundreds of Gaza Amputees Stranded in Legal Limbo
- The gallows law: Israel moves toward executing Palestinian children
- Tucker Carlson: The Path to Peace requires ending ‘special alliance’ with Israel
- This is ceasefire? Israel’s biggest massacre yet in Lebanon, another journalist killed in Gaza – Daily Update
- Tucker Carlson on Israel: This Is the Behavior of an Ally? Really?
- Gazans face a triple crisis: severe shortages of water and bread, healthcare in tatters
- NY Times reports how Netanyahu took the US into Iran War
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 