Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Marjorie Taylor Greene Says Ukraine Aid Will Drop to Zero If GOP Takes Congress

By Ilya Tsukanov – Samizdat – 04.11.2022

Last month, the White House expressed concerns that Trump Republicans could jeopardize future military and economic assistance to Ukraine after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy promised to stop writing “blank checks” to Kiev if the GOP wins back control of the House in the midterms.

Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has vowed that US aid to Ukraine will drop to nothing if her party takes Congress on Tuesday.

“Democrats have ripped our border wide open. But the only border they care about is Ukraine, not America’s southern border. Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine. Our country comes first,” Greene said at a “Save America” Trump rally in Sioux City, Iowa on Friday.

The congresswoman accused President Joe Biden and the Democrats of ignoring domestic problems, including the economy, inflation, crime, and the fentanyl crisis, of “putting America last,” and “destroying every single thread of democracy in the process.”

Greene promised that the GOP would open corruption investigations, impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and President Joe Biden, and “defund all the horrific policies the Democrats have passed over the past two years,” including plans to increase the size of the IRS, vaccine mandates, and political actors inside the Department of Justice and the FBI.

“In order to truly make a commitment to America, Republicans are going to have to be the new Republican Party. We can no longer be the party of Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Dick Cheney, George Bush and Mitt Romney, or any other sellout, weak Republican brand that just holds hands with Democrats and serves the globalist agenda that is the enemy of us all,” Greene said.

Greene, 48, has been an outspoken critic inside the Republican Party of Washington’s economic and military aid to Kiev. Earlier this year, she attacked the $40 billion Ukraine Spending Bill, citing the nation’s shortage of baby formula. “40 billion dollars, but there’s no baby formula for American mothers and babies,” the lawmaker said on the House floor in May.

Greene condemned the bill’s approval of “an unknown amount of money to the CIA” and other boondoggle assistance. “If this is claiming that it’s about saving lives, let’s be real. Then we would care about war-torn countries like Ethiopia. So that’s a bunch of hypocrisy,” she said.

57 mostly pro-Trump House Republicans and 11 GOP senators voted against Ukraine assistance earlier this year, citing fears of escalating tensions with Russia and a range of domestic issues. According to an NPR primary election tracker estimate, over nine in ten of the 200+ Trump-endorsed candidates running for the House, Senate, and top state offices won their GOP primaries earlier this year, oftentimes knocking out Republicans with a traditional, neoconservative stance on foreign policy, and those rejecting the former president’s claim that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him.

On Friday, Republicans in the House Judiciary Committee released a 1,050-page report citing whistleblower testimony outlining alleged politicization of the FBI and the DoJ, with the document expected to serve as a “road map” for congressional probes against Biden and the Democrats, should the GOP take Congress on Tuesday.

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Militarism | , | Leave a comment

FLASHBACK: Meet Smedley Butler (2010)

Corbett • 10/30/2022

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack 

FROM 2010: He was a tenacious soldier, the most decorated officer in the history of the U.S. marine corps…and he detested war. Find out about the tyrannical government moves and secretive fascist plots that turned this famous general into a campaigner against war on this week’s edition of The Corbett Report.

DOCUMENTATION

Documentation – Episode 123 – Meet Smedley Butler
Time Reference: 00:28
Description: 2010 podcast episode that you are watching the visualization of (includes mp3 audio download).
Link To: The Corbett Report
Documentation – YesXorNo Substack spruiks Smedley Butler
Time Reference: 02:17
Description: Corbett Report member continues to promote this episode.
Link To: YesXorNo Substack
Documentation – Corbett Report 2010 Data Archive (USB Flash Drive)
Time Reference: 04:20
Description: Containing over 17 GB of data, this 2010 Data Archive has the audio, video and text files of every Corbett Report production from 2010.
Link To: New World Next Week store
Documentation – Hans Schmidt on Butler and the Bonus March
Time Reference: 09:15
Description: From a 2008 episode of the radio program History Counts.
Link To: Radio4All
Documentation – Smedley Butler speaks at the Bonus March 1932
Time Reference: 11:17
Description: Actual recording of one of Butler’s speeches.
Link To: YouTube
Documentation – The White House Coup
Time Reference: 17:19
Description: BBC whitewash on Butler and the Business Plot.
Link To: Archive.org
Documentation – The American Liberty League and its Financiers
Time Reference: 26:19
Description: Information on the American Liberty League and its corporate backers.
Link To: The Constantine Report
Documentation – McCormack-Dixtein Committee Final Report to Congress
Time Reference: 27:03
Description: Quotations from 74th Congress House of Representatives Report, pursuant to House Resolution No. 198, 73d Congress, February 15, 1935.
Link To: Archive.org
Documentation – War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
Time Reference: 30:32
Description: Empassioned reading of Smedley Butler’s famous speech by Graham Frye.
Link To: YouTube
Documentation – Ron Paul’s What if? speech
Time Reference: 36:11
Description: Watch this YouTube video and spread it around. It is an excellent production.
Link To: YouTube
Documentation – Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
Time Reference: 40:27
Description: The NY Times exposes what we all already know: that the warmongers are paid Pentagon shills.
Link To: NYTimes
Documentation – Alex Jones Inside CNN Attack Piece
Time Reference: 41:35
Description: A must-see look behind the scenes as Alex Jones gets interviewed by CNN…and he tears them a new one.
Link To: Daily Motion
Documentation – War is a Racket (book)
Time Reference: 42:21
Description: Read the entire book online.
Link To: Archive.org

November 5, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment

FBI is ‘rotted at its core,’ Republican lawmakers say

RT | November 4, 2022

America is no longer a country where citizens are afforded equal justice under the law, as guaranteed by their Constitution, because the nation’s top law enforcement agency has been corrupted by politicized leadership and a “woke, leftist agenda” being imposed from the top, Republican lawmakers have claimed.

The allegations were contained in a 1,050-page report released on Friday by Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee. The report, which was based on information gathered from 14 FBI whistleblowers who came forward to expose a pattern of misconduct, argued that the agency was “rotted at its core.”

“Quite simply, the problem — the rot within the FBI — festers in and proceeds from Washington,” the report said. “The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, have become political institutions.”

The report detailed such abuses as a secret partnership in which the FBI receives private information on conservative users from Facebook, without seeking their consent or going though the legal processes that would normally be required to tap such data.

Whistleblowers also alleged that the FBI “looked the other way” on dozens of attacks against anti-abortion groups, even as the agency sent heavily armed teams of officers to arrest pro-life activists at their homes for alleged violations of selectively enforced crimes. Parents who spoke out at school board meetings over controversial policies were targeted by investigators as alleged terrorists.

At the same time, former FBI official Timothy Thibault “shut down” a probe into the overseas business dealings of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and attempted to keep the case from being reopened, the report said. Thibault openly displayed his political bias in social media posts that included his official title.

“America’s not America if you have a Justice Department that treats people differently under the law,” Representative Jim Jordan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, told Fox News on Friday. “It’s supposed to be equal treatment under the law. That’s not happening, and we know it’s not happening because 14 brave FBI agents came to us as whistleblowers and told us what exactly is going on here.”

The report also accused the FBI of inflating statistics on domestic extremism to help fuel a narrative promoted by President Joe Biden’s administration. FBI employees who have conservative views are being purged from the agency, it claims.

Republicans argued that the FBI was plagued by a “systemic culture of unaccountability,” as well as “rampant corruption, manipulation and abuse.” The agency’s shift toward “political meddling” has allegedly pulled resources away from legitimate law enforcement duties. For instance, one whistleblower claimed that he was told after the January 2021 US Capitol riot that child sex-abuse cases were “no longer an FBI priority and should be referred to local law enforcement agencies.”

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption | , , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Activist groups’ tanking Twitter profits – Musk

RT | November 4, 2022

Twitter owner Elon Musk has accused “activist groups” of “trying to destroy free speech in America” by pressuring advertisers to boycott his platform even though he hasn’t changed any policies. The billionaire took to Twitter to complain about the “massive drop in revenue” on Friday.

The platform is losing money “due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation and we did everything we could to appease the activists,” Musk tweeted, calling the situation “extremely messed up!”

“They’re trying to destroy free speech in America,” he wrote.

Musk held a Zoom call on Tuesday with representatives from the Stop Hate for Profit Coalition, a pressure group led by the ADL that has organized advertiser boycotts of social media platforms over perceived weaknesses in keeping out “hate speech.” Representatives from the NAACP, Color of Change, the Asian American Foundation, and the George Bush Presidential Center were also reportedly present, among others.

The coalition was able to secure all three of its “immediate requests” from the Tesla tycoon, according to multiple members and Musk himself.

He promised not to replatform banned accounts before the midterm election results were certified or before a “clear process” had been devised, and vowed to keep in place “election integrity” measures. Additionally, Musk agreed to form a “content moderation council” that would include representatives from the ADL and other coalition members with “diverse” viewpoints.

Despite appearing to bring the self-described “free speech absolutist” to heel, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt hinted that further controls might be necessary in a statement released following the call. He insisted “much more needs to be done to reduce lies and hate on Twitter” and said backtracking on previous progress was “not an option.”

A few Twitter users had suggestions for how Musk might deal with the pressure campaign.

“Name and shame the advertisers who are succumbing to the advertiser boycotts,” Mike Davis, co-founder of the Internet Accountability Project, tweeted, suggesting Musk’s followers engage in a “counter-boycott” against them.

More than three quarters of 2.7 million respondents agreed that advertisers should support free speech over political correctness when polled by Musk on Wednesday.

Musk fired the board of directors and several high ranking executives upon taking over as CEO last week. However, he has attempted to reassure advertisers that the site would not become a “free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequence” under his watch.

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Pfizer, Democrat-led “Accountable Tech” are Blackmailing Twitter

Will they succeed at preserving censorship?

By Igor Chudov | November 3, 2022

Pfizer is “pausing advertising on Twitter” because it is “concerned that Mr. Musk could scale back content moderation, which they worry would lead to an increase in objectionable content on the platform.”

Pfizer was one of the most significant sources of revenue for Twitter. I constantly saw Pfizer ads and promoted posts, such as this one:

(If you are not sure why “the human brain” becomes so sweaty once pink “science” grabs it firmly from behind, neither am I)

What is interesting is that this advertising pause involves not only Pfizer but other large multinationals with no specific issues related to Twitter censorship, such as General Mills, a producer of popular but unhealthy breakfast cereals.

Who is behind this? Meet a new “action coalition” called “Accountable Tech” that is directing efforts to withhold advertising money from misbehaving technology companies. You may be very surprised, or not, but “Accountable Tech” is packed with Democratic operatives:

Accountable Tech is spearheading this letter to Twitter advertisers:

Accountable Tech joined more than 25 groups to deliver the below message in a letter to Twitter’s top advertisers to demand nonnegotiable requirements for their ad business in the midst of Elon Musk’s acquisition:

To whom it may concern:

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized.

The undersigned organizations believe that Twitter should continue to uphold the practices that serve as guideposts for other Big Tech platformsWe call on you – Twitter’s top advertisers – to commit to these standards as non-negotiable requirements for advertising on the platform:

  1. Keep accounts including those of public figures and politicians that were removed for egregious violations of Twitter Rules – such as harassment, violence, and hateful conduct – off the platform

All these coalitions attempt to influence large advertisers into doing their bidding by withholding ad money from tech companies that “Accountable Tech” wants to punish.

I understand why Pfizer, a company selling fraudulent “Covid vaccine” and relying on censorship for continued sales, has a vested interest in Twitter continuing to censor vaccine skeptics. However, other companies mentioned above do not have such reasons.

General Mills should only care about selling its cereals. As such, they would advertise wherever the ads would bring future product buyers. So, the pecuniary interest of that company is certainly NOT in pausing their Twitter ads that go along with sports coverage and other non-controversial threads.

Thus, by stopping ads, General Mills acts against its own shareholders. Its management is not blind to this. However, over the years, the coalitions like Accountable Tech have acquired significant influence within these companies and boardrooms via various “diversity,” “equality,” and other “stakeholder” commissions intimidating corporate management.

I discussed this previously in a somewhat broader context after Musk made his first Twitter offer. I explained why “free speech” is a threat to very powerful interests:

Free Speech Threatens the Entire West’s Power Structure

Not all tech companies succumb to these “silencing coalitions.” Substack is a very successful, profitable platform that said no to all attempts to deplatform “misinformation superspreaders.” Rumble recently told France to bug off with its requests to close certain channels and blocked France. Other platforms like gab are doing just fine financially without these corporate advertisers.

These “fringe” platforms are resisting censorship but involve comparatively few users. What “Accountable Tech” is trying to do is keep the general masses on the largest social networks from learning the truth.

Will Elon Musk overcome this blackmail? Does he even care to have free speech on Twitter? Is he an ally of freedom? Will “Accountable Tech” win and silence us? What do you think?

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Canada’s Bill C-11 explained: A chilling law that lets the government censor user-generated content

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | November 3, 2022

Canada’s Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) is one of several recent attempts by Western governments to crush online speech while claiming that they support free expression.

The bill is being pushed by Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez — a politician who believes that unregulated speech “erodes the foundations of democracy.” And it has the full support of Canadian Prime Minister  — a world leader who previously said freedom of expression isn’t “freedom to hate.”

The Trudeau regime first attempted to pass a version of this bill in 2020. However, this bill (Bill C-10) failed in 2021 after mass pushback over the way it attempted to censor online speech.

After Bill C-10 died, Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of the Canadian Conservative Party of Canada who was serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) in 2021, warned critics of Bill C-10 to “make sure that we’re ready the next time Trudeau and his team come for our freedom of expression.”

And just one year later, Trudeau and his team did just that by resurrecting Bill C-10 and renaming it Bill C-11.

The bill gives Canada’s communications regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), increased powers to regulate “programs” — a definition that applies to almost all forms of audio-visual content that are uploaded by Canadian citizens.

It will empower the CRTC to set content promotion and demotion rules for Canadian content and require platforms to make financial contributions towards Canadian content.

As with most censorship bills, Bill C-11 uses freedom of expression as a red herring and claims that the bill will be “applied in a manner that is consistent with…the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings”

But the bill is so restrictive that even censorship-loving YouTube has warned that the bill will harm creators and creators are considering leaving the country if it passes.

Here are the main things you need to know about Bill C-11:

It empowers government regulators to censor user-generated content

When pushing Bill C-11, Rodriguez has implied that it won’t apply to user-generated content by repeating the phrase “platforms are in, users are out.” However, the actual text of the bill gives the CRTC vast powers to decide whether almost any piece of user-generated content uploaded by Canadian users falls under the scope of the bill.

Section 4.2 of the bill states that the CRTC “may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies.”

And while the CRTC is expected to consider three factors when making these regulations, Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, notes that these factors are only considerations that the CRTC can simply ignore.

“Much like the lip service the Commission has given at times to policy directions, the CRTC is free under the bill to confirm that it ‘considered’ the factors in setting the regulations and adopt a different approach,” Geist said.

The bill itself empowers the CRTC to indirectly censor any content that falls under the scope of Bill C-11 by imposing conditions on Canadian apps, social media platforms, and websites.

One of the most controversial conditions the CRTC can impose is a condition related to “the presentation of programs and programming services for selection by the public, including the showcasing and the discoverability of Canadian programs and programming services, such as original French language programs.”

This condition lets the CRTC decide whether content that falls within its scope should be boosted or demoted on Canadian apps, platforms, and websites. And according to Geist, this condition could result in platforms that host user-generated content being forced to demote content and apply warning labels to a wide range of lawful content.

It may target a wide range of apps, platforms, and websites

While most of the discussion around Bill C-11 has focused on how it will impact user-generated content on social media, the potential scope of the bill is actually much wider because it doesn’t contain any provisions that limit its scope to just social media platforms.

And an early government memo on Bill C-10 (the Bill C-11 predecessor) acknowledged that the Canadian government wanted to target audiobook services such as Audible, podcast apps such as Pocket Casts and Stitcher, music streaming services such as  Music and Amazon Music, sports streaming services such as DAZN and MLB.tv, video streaming services such as Netflix and Disney+, niche streaming services such as BritBox, websites such as the BBC and TVO, gaming platforms such as PlayStation, home workout apps, and more.

It will limit the reach of independent Canadian creators

Even if the CRTC doesn’t use its Bill C-11 powers to push for the demotion of lawful content, any presentation or discoverability conditions that are imposed on apps, platforms, or websites are still likely to limit the reach of independent Canadian creators and boost mainstream media outlets.

According to Geist, the current rules for determining whether a piece of content is “certified Canadian content” are “geared toward well-established productions that fall outside the digital first world” and it’s unclear whether content from independent, digital first creators even qualifies as certified Canadian content. This means that content from large Canadian media outlets is much more likely to be selected for prioritization when any Bill C-11 presentation and discoverability conditions are imposed.

Geist argues that “the impact will be incredibly damaging to digital first creators, who may find their content effectively de-prioritized in their own country based on Canadian legislation as implemented by the CRTC.”

Even if independent creator content is selected for prioritization, the way Bill C-11’s presentation and discoverability conditions force Canadian content on users who aren’t necessarily interested in the content is likely to result in lower engagement rates. These reduced engagement rates will result in algorithms recommending Canadian content less frequently outside of Canada and ultimately reduce the reach of independent Canadian content in non-Canadian countries.

It will give Canadians an inferior online experience

The way Bill C-11 forces Canadian content into the feeds of Canadian users also has a detrimental impact on their online experience. Instead of being able to fill their feeds with interesting content from their favorite creators, Canadians will have a certain amount of potentially irrelevant content forced on them by the CRTC’s requirements.

Not only does the bill prevent Canadians from being able to fully control and customize their feeds but it also makes it more time-consuming for them to find non-Canadian content. Even if Canadian users take explicit steps to seek out non-Canadian content, the requirements of Bill C-11 will continuously push a pre-determined amount of Canadian content into their feeds.

In addition to this, Bill C-11 could reduce the number of apps, platforms, and websites that are available to Canadians because the high cost of compliance may result in some companies pulling their services out of Canada.

Furthermore, Canadians will likely have to pay more to access subscription-based apps, platforms, and websites that fall under the scope of Bill C-11 as the affected companies pass on the cost of compliance to users.

It could create privacy issues for independent Canadian creators

Bill C-11’s discoverability conditions could create privacy issues for independent Canadian creators because the only practical way for these creators to verify that they’re Canadian would be to hand over sensitive personal information.

Canada’s federal privacy commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, admitted this would be the case during his appearance before a Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

“Discoverability conditions could nonetheless potentially require the adaptation of existing algorithms that rely on personal information or the analysis of personal information to determine whether user-generated content is Canadian,” Dufresne told the committee.

And these privacy restrictions aren’t limited to algorithms. The more personal data companies hold, the more devastating the privacy impact is on their users if there’s ever a data breach.

It disproportionately impacts small platforms

Most large apps, platforms, and websites have significant data harvesting capabilities, utilize advanced algorithms, and generate billions of dollars in revenue. These resources make it relatively easy for these platforms to comply with Bill C-11’s requirements to identify Canadian content, prioritize Canadian content in a way that’s compliant with CRTC orders, and make their financial contributions towards the production of Canadian content.

However, smaller platforms with more rudimentary technology and less revenue will find it harder to abide by the requirements of Bill C-11. Some may even find the cost of compliance to be so prohibitive that they’re left with no choice but to pull out of the Canadian market altogether.

The potential privacy issues associated with Bill C-11 could also harm smaller platforms that are attempting to differentiate from their Big Tech counterparts by offering a more private experience for their users. These platforms could be forced to start collecting personal information to comply with the bill’s discovery conditions, and in doing so, lose their competitive advantage over the tech giants.

Stay up to date with Bill C-11

Despite the major problems with Bill C-11, it has already made its way through the Canadian House of Commons and it’s on the verge of passing the Senate. However, there are some members of the Senate that oppose the bill and hope to kill it before it becomes law.

You can read the full text of Bill C-11 here.

You can track the progress of Bill C-11 here.

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

The Biosecurity State With James Corbett & Meryl Nass

Good Morning CHD | November 3, 2022

Good Morning CHD is a daily news show by Children’s Health Defense TV bringing you the latest health freedom news.

Contact us at GoodmorningCHD@childrenshealthdefense.org

November 4, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

New Zealand says “misinformation” and Covid policies seen to be “infringing on rights” could fuel extremism

A secret service initiative

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | November 3, 2022

New Zealand authorities have released a guide to help people identify signs of violent extremism.

The secret service says they are usually closely monitoring between 40 to 50 potential terrorists, adding that most used to be motivated by their white identity or by religion – but in the past six months a third group has supposedly emerged; those motivated by politics, particularly around Covid.

“Recognizing a potential warning sign and then alerting New Zealand SIS or police could be the vital piece in the puzzle that ultimately saves lives,” NZSIS Director-General Rebecca Kitteridge said.

“To pay attention and to be alert so that if they see or hear about something that seems off, that worries them and concerns them, they might have a look at this information to say ‘does this indicate to me that this person is actually on the road to committing an attack.’”

The Director-General mentioned Covid specifically, adding that a growing number of people are also concerned about infringement on rights.

“So it could be the Covid measures that the Government took, or it could be other policies that are interpreted as infringing on rights and it’s a kind of what I describe as a hot mess of ideologies and beliefs fueled by conspiracy theories,” Kitteridge said.

Prime Minister  also had comments:

“It would be wrong to imply that we have this significant surge in threat in that regard – are there individuals who subscribe to a particular ideology that may border and dip into violent extremism? Yes,” she said.

On the topic of online misinformation, Ardern said, “it’s not about censorship,” adding “It’s about equipping people to identify when they may be subject to misinformation, making sure we’re building our resilience in our young people to be able to identify it… and to create trusted sources where people know they can go.”

November 3, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

It’s time to open the AstraZeneca files

By Dr Ros Jones | TCW Defending Freedom | November 2, 2022

The AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine has all but disappeared from use. We need to know why, and whether troubling evidence from its trials was ignored by the regulators or withheld from the public. That is why HART, the independent Health Advisory and Recovery Team, has demanded a ‘Pfizer files’ style data release from the Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Last week, we submitted an FoI request to the MHRA prepared by PJH Law requiring the release of all data submitted by AstraZeneca in their application for a licence for their Covid-19 vaccine (AZD1222/Vaxzevria), the data that the MHRA relied on before granting a conditional marketing authorisation for its use.

We asked for:

1. Pre- and post-authorisation safety and efficacy data for this product;

2. All information that allowed a ‘rigorous scientific assessment’ of all the available evidence of quality, safety and effectiveness by the MHRA;

3. All information and full data set that the MHRA stated their expert scientists and clinicians reviewed from the laboratory preclinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine and the conditions for its safe supply and distribution;

4. Anonymised data from their clinical trials.

Why is this necessary?

AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria was approved for use in the UK on December 30 2020 to a fanfare for UK science. It had been pre-ordered and prioritised for Britain by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who boasted it was not just safe and effective but a triumph for ‘Global’ Britain. To date the failings of this novel technology vaccine have been brushed under the carpet, never explained and never apologised for.

Within weeks of AZ’s rollout, concerns about the vaccine (trials of which had been paused twice, see here and here) were being flagged. In a short time successive European governments followed Denmark’s lead in suspending its use. The UK’s advisory body, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) continued to insist it was still safe, but in May advised it should not be given to anyone under 40. By that stage millions of doses had been administered. From the start, the vaccine was disproportionately associated with adverse reactions, yet it was administered to children: some 11,500 have received 1st doses and 8,700 second doses and ‘extremely limited boosters’. These have resulted in 266 Yellow Cards at an adverse reaction reporting rate of 1 in 43 children.

To date, 49.16million adult AZ doses have been administered and 246,393 people impacted by adverse effects, according to the MHRA’s Yellow Card adverse reports, admitted by the MHRA to be likely to be only 10 per cent of the true number.

The first pay-out under the vaccine injuries compensation scheme was to the widow of a 48-year-old who died of brain blood clots commencing days after his AZ vaccination, a death that occurred two months after Denmark had suspended AZ use because of side effects. The US never purchased the AZ vaccine because of health officials’ concerns.

The British people have a right to see all the data provided by AstraZeneca to the MHRA, both as a basis for the initial conditional use authorisation, and subsequently as part of AstraZeneca’s ongoing safety surveillance. Firstly, because a large sum of taxpayers’ money was allocated to the development and subsequent rollout of this vaccine, but secondly because people put their faith in the safety of this home-produced vaccine. When told that vaccines were our way out of the pandemic, who wouldn’t want to get jabbed? Indeed, the WHO’s definition of herd immunity was changed in November 2020 to remove all mention of naturally acquired immunity, leaving only vaccination as the new ‘gold standard’ – ‘fool’s gold?’ one wonders.

The AstraZeneca product officially remains in clinical trials until next year, though like the other vaccines, volunteers in the control arm were vaccinated early on, negating much of the scientific basis for a randomised controlled trial. The latest autumn booster programme states that AstraZeneca is ‘currently unavailable’ but at no point has the public been told why this is the case. Does the company or the regulator know something that has not been shared?

‘Safe and effective’, the marketing banner whenever the ‘vaccines’ were being discussed by the MHRA, MSM or Pharma, is of grave concern, especially when it comes to the vaccination of healthy children. But at all ages, it is clear that properly informed consent has been set aside, in contravention of the General Medical Council Good Practice Guidelines.

The battle to obtain the data and information relied upon by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to licence the Pfizer vaccine pointed to the secrecy that had shrouded these trials. The FDA planning to retain the material for 75 years, but a court granted an FoI request and required the FDA to release all the data over eight months. This has resulted in 451,000 pages of information now being analysed by 3,500 experts and 250 lawyers. Evidence of fraud would negate any indemnity for Pfizer.

The overstating of efficacy and understating of harms continues unabated not least by the MHRA, the very same UK body responsible for ensuring that medicines meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy, and for pharmacovigilance across the UK, the objectives of which are to:

·  Prevent harm from adverse drug reactions in humans arising from the use of authorised medicinal products;

·  Promote the safe and effective use of medicinal products, through providing timely information about the safety of medicinal products to patients, healthcare professionals and the public.

At a press briefing on the AstraZeneca vaccines in December 2020, the MHRA chief Dr June Raine glibly stated:

·  Safety of the public comes first, and this comes after a thorough and scientifically rigorous review of all the evidence in terms of safety, effectiveness and quality;

·  ‘We are facing one of the biggest threats to health, in the UK and around the world’;

·  The vaccine ‘protects’ against Cov-19 and will save many thousands of lives;

·  There are no specific precautions if you have had Covod-19 and you do not need testing before the injection;

·   Vaccines should be considered for pregnancy (and those breastfeeding) when the potential benefit outweighs the risks following individual talks with every woman and their healthcare professional.

The latter directly contradicted the MHRA’s own summary assessment that ‘it is considered that sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time’. 

Dr Raine’s alarming unilateral declaration of the MHRA’s switch from a regulatory function to  an enabling role alongside her consistent ‘playing down’ of vaccine injuries and treating adverse effects as coincidental, further underlined the need for the AZ trials data disclosure.

We need to know whether the MHRA has a defined point at which it pulls a drug or vaccine and if not, why not?

Conclusion:

The government has invested millions of taxpayers’ monies to develop and market the AZ product. A large percentage of its population have been injected with a liability-free vaccine and we therefore require complete transparency. It would show utter contempt for our democracy if the British people are denied access to this information.

If their due diligence has been thorough, releasing this data should confirm their oft-repeated declaration that the AZ vaccine is safe and effective, thus providing reassurance.

The public’s need for this information is urgent, given that the vaccination programme is ongoing. Despite the evidence of unprecedented harms (deaths and debilitating injuries) on their own pharmacovigilance databases, governments across the world have told their citizens and our children that the covid-19 genetic vaccines are safe. It is time for total transparency and honesty.

The full background report to the HART FoI and the FoI itself can be found on HART’s website here. 

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

All Those Responsible Must Pay a Price for Terrorising and Harming the People They Are Meant to Serve

BY DR GARY SIDLEY | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | NOVEMBER 2, 2022

I belong to a privileged generation. Not that I was raised in affluence; far from it. Born in 1958, to a mother who worked all her life as a weaver in the textile industry and a father employed as a maintenance mechanic at the local factory, I lived on a council estate for the first decade of my life. Money was tight, holidays were basic and infrequent, and treats – in the form of confectionary – were rare, usually restricted to a Turkish Delight chocolate bar each Sunday evening. Although I never realised it until I was 62, I was, however, part of a cohort who possessed something sacrosanct, something so very precious and – deplorably – something future generations may never enjoy again: individual freedom.

To be clear, the world I have lived in has been far from perfect. My era has been one incorporating fundamental inequalities and injustices, widespread poverty, discrimination and – particularly in my young-adult years – a recurring risk of physical assault. But despite this context, each of us took for granted a range of basic human rights: to meet with whomever we wished; to leave our homes whenever we chose; to eat whatever we wanted; to express opinions others might not agree with; to take risks, make mistakes and learn sometimes painful lessons; to wear whatever we wanted; to work to improve our career prospects and earn more money to enhance our lives and those of our families; and to decide what drugs and other medical interventions to accept. When cheap flights emerged in the 1970s and 80s, the whole world became wonderfully accessible.

My perception (probably a naïve one) of successive Labour and Conservative Governments was that, although often inept and guilty of policy errors, they broadly sought to improve the lives of their citizens and could at least be relied upon to protect us against external malignant forces. Furthermore, it seemed that the life-spans of our elected politicians were dependent upon keeping us – their constituents – satisfied by acting primarily in the interests of U.K. citizens.

But 30 months ago, this illusion was shattered.

I knew something was awry as early as February 2020. By March the same year my early-warning detector would not rest. While the media, politicians and the science ‘experts’ informed us – incessantly – that a uniquely lethal pathogen was spreading carnage across the world, and unprecedented and draconian restrictions on our day-to-day lives were essential to prevent Armageddon, I wasn’t buying it. I formed the view that a momentous event, unparalleled in my lifetime, was unfolding, but it was not primarily about a virus.

Why, at that point in time, did I recognise that something sinister was underway while almost everyone else I met seemed to be swallowing the dominant narrative? It is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps my time in the early 1980s as a psychiatric charge nurse in an NHS hospital, occasionally interfacing with the ‘infection control’ department, gave me insight into how this professional group operate. Although well-meaning, their advice regarding how to minimise the spread of contagion on a ward often seemed impractical, revealing an apparent inability to see the bigger picture. Or maybe my in-depth knowledge of risk assessment (gleaned in my doctoral thesis during my time as a clinical psychologist) had impressed upon me how woefully inaccurate we are in gauging the relative threat levels posed by various hazards inherent in our environment. What I did know for sure was that Big Pharma – arguably the most corrupt industry in the world – would exploit the emerging ‘crisis’ for its own ends. And how right I was.

The list of state-driven human rights abuses we have endured under the pretence of ‘keeping us safe’ and the (ominous) ‘greater good’ is long: prohibition of travel; confinement in our homes; social isolation; closure of businesses; denial of access to leisure activities; de-humanising mask mandates; directives (scrawled on floors and walls) dictating which way to walk; an arbitrary ‘stay two metres apart’ rule; exclusion from the weddings and funerals of our loved ones; the seclusion and neglect of our elderly; school shutdowns; children’s playgrounds sealed off with yellow and black tape; muzzled children and toddlers; students denied both face-to-face tuition and a ‘rites-of-passage’ social life; and coerced experimental ‘vaccines’ that turned out to be more harmful and less effective than initially claimed. Equally egregious were the strategies deployed to lever compliance with these restrictions, namely psychological manipulation (‘nudging’), pervasive censorship across the media and academic journals and the cancellation and vilification of anyone brave enough to speak out against the dominant Covid narrative. All-in-all, a state-driven assault on the core of our shared humanity.

As the state-orchestrated infringement of our basic human rights continued, I felt compelled to act in ways that were far outside of my comfort zone. The 61-year-old man who had never been on a protest march until summer 2020, and who had innocently assumed that most of society’s leaders were decent people who tried to do what was right, had changed. I found myself walking with tens of thousands of others along Regent Street, London, screaming “Freedom!” I pushed “Back to Normal” leaflets through the letterboxes of hundreds of my neighbours. I stood on the corner of our local shopping street with a placard held aloft stating, “Say No To Vaccine Passports”.

Throughout 2020 and 2021, I struggled to find reasons for the irrational, masochistic Covid restrictions and the ubiquitous infringement of our basic human rights. My explanations evolved. Initially I clung to the ‘panic and incompetence’ rationale, that our governments had been spooked by the images coming out of China – remember the videos of people falling dead in the streets – and the mono-focused, blinkered and catastrophic prophecies of our so-called epidemiological experts. As the atrocities persisted, this explanation was rendered inadequate, and it morphed into an ‘opportunistic agendas’ account where activists – promoting green aspirations, digitalised IDs, social credit systems, a cashless society, universal income, a biosecurity state – had exploited the anxieties associated with the emergence of a novel respiratory virus. By 2021 these conclusions, in turn, seemed insufficient to explain the persistence of the horrors we were enduring and it – belatedly – became clear that globalist and ‘deep state’ powers were at work, striving to realise their inhuman aspirations. My further reading about the activities of World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the European Union, the World Health Organisation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Anthony Fauci and Big Pharma, and others, confirmed this emerging conclusion.

As the Covid event fades from media attention (replaced by a focus on similarly dehumanising and totalitarian responses to environmental threats, the war in Ukraine and the imminent cost-of-living crisis) it is intriguing to reflect upon its residual effects.

I continue to mourn what I have lost, a process associated with a complex mix of fluctuating emotions. For two years, our Government, aided and abetted by state-funded scientists, denied us opportunities for fun and human connection, stymied our freedoms and orchestrated a systematic campaign to coerce us to both accept experimental ‘vaccines’ and to slavishly cover our faces with cloth or plastic. Consequently, I feel anger and disgust towards many of our politicians, epidemiological ‘experts’ and behavioural scientists who were complicit with this shameful period in our history. And I now distrust all sources of information, whether it be the media, the ‘scientific’ world or public health experts. Without an anchor for truth, I float – incredulous – in an ocean of mainstream-generated misinformation.

My 60-plus years of naivety have been shattered. I believe only those few who have shown selfless integrity throughout the Covid debacle. Also, I am now sceptical about much of the green agenda: state-funded scientists lied to us about Covid so why wouldn’t they show the same self-serving dishonesty about the climate?

Closer to home, it is clear my life has changed. I feel disappointment and irritation towards many people who I previously respected and liked, such as friends who colluded with the catastrophically damaging Covid restrictions because of fear, ignorance or a desire to avoid hassle and condemnation. Many relationships are now more distant. On the rare occasions we meet there is often an ‘elephant in the room’, and when the Covid issue is touched upon I typically feel frustrated that many do not want to consider the implications of what has been inflicted upon us.

I feel similarly towards mental health colleagues who, for years, I had stood alongside and respected, collectively fighting the tyranny of biological psychiatry (its human rights infringements, coercion, overuse of drugs and vilification of those who questioned them) but who failed to recognise a much bigger tyranny when it emerged in 2020. While a handful of this anti-psychiatry lobby did soon recognise the totalitarian threat inherent to the Covid response, most bought into the dominant narrative. Heated disagreements ensued with a few, followed by ongoing mutual resentment; for most we just avoid each other.

But the residual effects of the Covid debacle are not all negative. New friendships have emerged with people from across the political spectrum. Based on a mutual respect, enduring bonds have formed with fellow sceptics both locally (through the Community Assembly and the Stand in the Park initiatives) and nationally via joint endeavours in HARTSmile Free, and PANDA. And it was uplifting to recently discover – via a chance meeting in the local pub – that the family I had lived across the road from for the last seven years, yet had rarely spoken to, had always been as sceptical as me about the dominant Covid narrative.

Furthermore, I have noticed that my behaviour has changed in subtle ways. I now make more of an effort to smile and gain eye contact with – unmasked – strangers. Similarly, when greeting acquaintances, I’m more inclined to hug or shake hands as compared to pre-2020 levels of bodily contact. (Non of that fist-bump and elbow-touch nonsense for me.) It’s as if I’m striving to compensate for the human connection deficit that we’ve accrued over the last 30 months. Or perhaps I’m making a defiant metaphorical one-finger salute to any onlookers who still adhere to the risk-averse and dehumanising dominant Covid narrative?

While we continue to drown in a sea of propaganda, censorship and coercion, who knows what the future might hold?

One thing is for sure: We must never forget what the political leaders and public health specialists inflicted upon us. Whether the reason was weakness, groupthink, conflict of interest or unadulterated corruption, the miscreants must all be held to account and pay a price for terrorising the people they are meant to serve. This assertion is not fuelled by a primitive desire for retribution – well, not primarily – but by an expectation that, if the guilty are not named and shamed, the same totalitarian impositions will be repeated again and again.

The conviction sheet is a long one. It includes political leaders at home (Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drayford) and abroad (including Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, Joe Biden and Jacinda Ardern); Bill Gates and his various funding agencies; SAGE scientists who danced to the tune of their academic and political paymasters; the behavioural science ‘nudgers’ at the helm of the worldwide psychological manipulation strategy; the professional organisations that have manifestly colluded with the state-driven tyranny (including the British Medical Association and the British Psychological Society); the conflicted drug regulators (such as the MHRA); the powerful, profit-driven pharmaceutical companies, deploying their financial clout to influence health policy decisions; and the mainstream media, who have slavishly peddled the dominant Covid narrative while dismissing alternative viewpoints.

To successfully expose the wrongdoings of such powerful individuals and institutions is a big ask. Realistically, only bottom-up resistance and protests from millions of ordinary people could achieve this aim, and in this regard there are reasons for optimism. Truth will – eventually – reveal itself. Despite the ongoing censorship and manipulation, public dissent to the attempted imposition of a biosecurity state is becoming increasingly visible. Masking in the community is – at the time of writing – practised only by an eccentric minority. The net harms of Covid restrictions are more widely recognised. Ordinary citizens increasingly claim they will not be locked down and separated from their loved ones ever again. And – perhaps more importantly – the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative is crumbling, as indicated by more and more people rejecting the jabs.

If we do not wish to live in a ‘transhuman’ society devoid of personal freedoms, where our day-to-day decisions – where we go, what we say, what we eat, how we spend our money, what drugs we ingest – are determined by the state’s version of the ‘greater good’, we must all continue to show visible dissent to the globalists’ new world order.

Together, I believe we can defeat the biggest threat to Western values witnessed in my lifetime. And even if we don’t succeed, history will show that at least we tried.

Dr. Gary Sidley is a retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Smile Free campaign. He blogs at Coronababble

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Dick Durbin says free speech doesn’t protect “misinformation” that downplays political violence

The statement itself is misinformation

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | November 2, 2022

“Free speech does not include spreading misinformation to downplay political violence,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who also is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, tweeted – referencing an alleged “uptick in hate speech” since Elon Musk took  private.

“Misinformation” is protected by the .

The uptick that Senator Durbin is referencing was a bot campaign that Twitter suggests was used to troll the platform and the media as soon as Musk took control of the company.

Senator’s Durbin’s comments followed Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeting a link to an article containing claims about the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul.

Musk posted the link in response to a tweet by Hillary Clinton that contained a link by the Los Angeles Times. She wrote: “The Republican Party and its mouthpieces now regularly spread hate and deranged conspiracy theories. It is shocking, but not surprising, that violence is the result. As citizens, we must hold them accountable for their words and the actions that follow.”

While posting the link, Musk wrote: “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.” Musk deleted the tweet after about six hours. However, it already had over 100,000 likes and 28,000 retweets.

Musk did not explain why he deleted the tweet.

He has initially claimed to be a “free speech absolutist.” However, in a statement to advertisers after he became Twitter’s new owner, he said that the platform will not become a “free-for-all hellscape.”

November 2, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US agencies working directly with Big Tech to police Internet content

By Drago Bosnic | November 1, 2022

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the United States effectively became a police state. Government control and direct surveillance, the legality of which remains questionable at best, has been the norm ever since. With the advent of new technologies and the expansion of the so-called Big Tech (Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Apple, Meta/Facebook, etc.), the government managed to acquire unprecedented access to the personal information of not just its own citizens, but hundreds of millions of others around the world as well.

For decades, Big Tech denied any involvement with US agencies, despite it being common knowledge for the vast majority of users. However, the level of cooperation and integration between the US government and the aforementioned Internet giants (all of which are private companies) has been truly staggering.

Back in August, while on the Joe Rogan podcast, Meta/Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the FBI worked with the company to suppress so-called “Russian propaganda” shortly before the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was published by the New York Post. However, new reports now indicate that this Big Tech-US government collusion goes much deeper, according to the leaked documents acquired by The Intercept. Their investigation revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “quietly broadening control over speech it considers dangerous.” Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

According to the report, the work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”, a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens US interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.

Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information, The Intercept reports.

During a March 2022 meeting, FBI official Laura Dehmlow warned that the “threat of subversive information on social media” could undermine support for the US government – stressing that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.” Interestingly, Dehmlow’s insistence on preventing the fall of support for the US government is clearly a priority over telling the truth. What’s more, the US agencies seem to have a strict bias towards certain power structures within the US establishment, primarily those dominated by the DNC neoliberals and partially the GOP neoconservatives. This was particularly noticeable during Donald Trump’s presidency, when undermining the 45th US president through disinformation and conspiracy theories such as the alleged “Russian election meddling” wasn’t seen as a “threat to our democracy”.

Expectedly, the Big Tech companies denied involvement. Twitter told The Intercept that they “do not coordinate with other entities when making content moderation decisions” and that they “independently evaluate content in line with the Twitter Rules.” However, the claim doesn’t seem very convincing given the sheer amount of coordinated efforts by the Big Tech companies (seemingly unrelated, as they are all officially separate private entities) to suppress so-called MDM (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation). Having every Big Tech corporation banning or restricting millions of users in a virtually identical manner can only be described as a cooperative effort directed by the same authority. The Intercept report indicates that this authority is none other than the US government itself.

The issue at hand is the fact that various interest groups within the US establishment are controlling what hundreds of millions of people get to see as the “undeniable truth”, or worse yet, billions when taking the global scale into account. Whether it’s the election meddling designed to push their preferred candidates or promoting wars around the world, these entities should be denied such a tremendous amount of power.

The so-called “struggle against MDM (misinformation, disinformation, malinformation)” has become the No. 1 pretext to suppress any information deemed as such. This has gone so far that private companies are now fining their customers, with PayPal deducting $2500 from anyone’s account for “spreading MDM”. It’s clear that such a level of control is quite uncomfortable, to say the least. The question is, where does it stop?

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

November 1, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment